Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Inward Investment

Helen Jones: What progress is being made with promoting inward investment in the north-west; and if she will make a statement.

Nigel Griffiths: The United Kingdom attracts the lion's share of inward investment to the European Union, and we are keen to support the contribution that is made by my hon. Friend's area, the north-west. Last year, the Government and their agencies supported the attraction or retention of more than 50 firms, which secured or created almost 10,000 jobs, and we intend to continue that record.

Helen Jones: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that the Omega site in my constituency is vital to the development of well-paid, highly skilled jobs in the area. Will he therefore take a personal interest in the development of the site and liaise with other Departments to ensure that we have a procedure not only for the proper development of the site but to give people the right skills and to create the right public transport links to enable people from around the area to take full advantage of the jobs that will be created?

Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend, together with the local council, local businesses and Government agencies—the regional development agency and the Small Business Service—has championed the cause of inward investment in her constituency and the surrounding area. Yesterday, I had the opportunity, on behalf of my hon. Friend, to discuss with the Minister for Transport the transport infrastructure requirements and the investment that has already been made. I have also discussed with the Minister with responsibility for skills the vital need to ensure that there continues to be a skilled work force with the appropriate skills. All in all, it is a good news story. We want to reinforce the work that is being done locally and to promote those bold new initiatives to secure jobs for the present and the future.

Jonathan Djanogly: Is not inward investment a relative term, because the fact that other European economies have been doing so poorly does not mean that we have been doing particularly well? Is not the real problem that taxes and regulations mean that foreign non-European companies no longer wish to invest to the same extent?

Nigel Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman is the only Member—I suspect that he is—who does not believe that there has been a world slowdown, especially in Europe, I shall enlighten him. The strength of our economy has allowed us to attract the lion's share of inward investment and, according to the latest figures, to increase the share of inward investment into Europe at a time when countries such as Germany have experienced a declining share. I hope that he and his Front-Bench colleagues will welcome the positive action that the Department of Trade and Industry has taken to ensure that we have as secure a base as possible for manufacturing and for the other sectors of the economy that have enabled us to ride the global downturn better than almost any other advanced country.

Andy Burnham: May I bring the Minister's attention to my part of the north-west, where in the past two years we have experienced seven major manufacturing redundancies and lost 1,000 manufacturing jobs in my constituency? Last week, Peter Miles Engineering closed overnight, leaving 160 people out of a job—without even the courtesy of a text message, which seems to be the trend these days—and owed five weeks' wages. As well as looking urgently at the need to bring new investment to the Leigh economy, may I urge the Minister to do all that he can to speed up redundancy payments for local families who have been left in such a terrible financial crisis?

Nigel Griffiths: I heard of that report; I understand that the company makes parts for JCB-type diggers. I have had the opportunity to apprise the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) of it, and he will liaise with my hon. Friend to ensure that payments are made quickly. Obviously, I deeply regret the loss of those jobs. I understand that some restructuring might be possible, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend kept me advised of progress on that.

Post Office Closures

Tom Brake: What recent discussions she has had with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters on post office closures.

Stephen Timms: Department of Trade and Industry Ministers and officials are in regular discussions with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters about a wide range of post office network issues, including closures.

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his response. Has he had a meeting with the federation since Colin Baker, its general secretary, described the switch from benefit and pension books to direct payments as confusion and shambles, and referred to the possibility of civil disobedience? Does he agree that that shambles, combined with the restrictions that are placed on the distribution of literature about Post Office card accounts, threatens the future of many thousands of sub-post offices around the country?

Stephen Timms: I do not agree with those remarks. The important thing for everyone concerned about the Post Office—in the House, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and elsewhere—is to focus on securing a commercially successful future for the network. Thanks to the £500 million investment that we have made in universal banking, the fact that there are now 11 million current account holders who can go to any post office in the country and obtain cash free over the counter with their ATM card, and the fact that the £150 million a year funding support for the rural network was recently approved by the European Commission, the prospects for that commercially successful future are now very good, as long as we work together to ensure that we realise it.

Jackie Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend accept the concerns of sub-postmasters that if the footfall in our post offices falls, many of them will have to decide whether their businesses are viable? Why has Post Office Ltd been prevented from promoting the Post Office card account as a product in its own right?

Stephen Timms: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of footfall. That is why it is so important that we now have 11 million current account holders, many of whom will, for the first time, have a compelling reason to go into their local post office to obtain cash with their ATM card. The Post Office wants to increase that number, and a successful banking business is the key to a successful post office network. I have seen a variety of quite bright and attractive literature from the Post Office about direct payment, in which the Post Office card account features clearly. The important thing is that everybody has access to clear, accurate information, and I believe that that information is now being provided.

David Ruffley: Will the Minister tell us what the average rural post office will lose in revenue in this coming year as a result of the ill-thought-out changeover to automated credit transfer?

Stephen Timms: What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that there has been a very sharp reduction in rural post office closures—115 in the last financial year, which is the lowest for eight years. That is the result of our commitment to prevent avoidable closures—which is now backed up by the £150 million this year, next year and the year after—to safeguard the rural network and the incomes of rural postmasters, and to ensure that there continues to be wide access to post office services throughout the rural parts of the country.

Anne Campbell: Is my hon. Friend aware that, following a vigorous campaign by Labour councillors in Arbury ward in Cambridge, the Post Office has decided to delay the closure of Victoria road post office? Will he ensure that the Post Office remains sensitive to the needs of its customers and listens carefully to their views?

Stephen Timms: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign for Victoria road, in which she has been very active. I am aware of the progress that has been made in that case. We have provided specific funding to enable Postwatch to scrutinise each of the urban closure proposals, and it has put very thorough procedures in place. I am very pleased with the evidence that those procedures are working.

Roy Beggs: The Minister will be aware that many small village retail outlets are viable only because they have income from the Post Office. He has told us this morning how many million accounts have now been opened. Will he tell us how many people still have neither a bank account nor a Post Office card account? What further encouragement will be given during the transition, and will people—especially the very elderly—still be able to hold on to their pension books?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and I can give him the figure. There are 3.5 million people across the whole country who do not have a bank account or a Post Office card account—the latter, of course, is very new. Our view has always been that it is important to give those people the opportunity to open a bank account because there are many benefits available to them if they do so. The Department for Work and Pensions has made it clear that, at the end of the two-year transition to direct payment, there will be what it describes as an exceptions service available for those few people who have difficulties with the arrangements that will be in place by that time. Their interests will certainly be safeguarded. This is an important commercial opportunity for rural post offices, and an opportunity to promote financial inclusion by extending bank accounts to many more people who, in the past, have just not been able to get them.

Stephen Hepburn: Is the Minister aware that more than three quarters of the people who claim benefits in the Jarrow constituency use their local post office? What is the logic in the Post Office's decision to close branches in Hedgley road and Bede Burn road in Jarrow? Will he use his offices to ensure that Post Office Ltd., which is on a different planet from Members of the House according to what we have heard today, resists any closures in areas of high dependency?

Stephen Timms: I am not familiar with the cases in my hon. Friend's constituency, although I will certainly have a look at them. If he has not already done so, I would encourage him to raise his concerns with Postwatch. Of course, all those people who use the post office to obtain benefits will continue to be able to do so under the new arrangements, through either a bank account or the Post Office card account.
	In addition, people who do not use the post office, but who have ordinary current accounts, will be able to go to their local post office to obtain cash. The post office will receive a payment for that, and there will be the benefits of extra footfall as people use it to buy additional items. It is widely agreed that the number of urban post offices needs to be reduced because the network is very dense, but, beyond that, the prospects are very good.

Tim Yeo: Why did the Minister duck the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley)? Is it because the Government are against small post offices and do not care how hard they make it for vulnerable old people to continue to collect their pensions in cash? Will the Minister confirm that Post Office management are rewarded if they speed up post office closures? That policy, coupled with the obstacles that he is constantly putting in the way of people who want to open Post Office card accounts, is leading directly to more post office closures and more problems for vulnerable old people.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that the number of rural post office closures has declined so sharply. The number last year was significantly fewer than that when the Government he supported left office. We are making a great deal of progress. We have made the commitment to ensure that there should be no avoidable rural post office closures and we have provided the funding to make a reality of that commitment. That is widely welcomed in rural areas, and he should congratulate the Government on the progress that we have made compared with the failure of the Government he supported. His points about incentives for Post Office managers are simply not correct.

Exchange Rates

Win Griffiths: If she will visit Bridgend to assess the impact of exchange rates on future employment.

Patricia Hewitt: Although I have no current plans to visit Bridgend, I am well aware of the difficulties that the weakness of the euro, until very recently, has caused for British industry, particularly manufacturing.

Win Griffiths: My right hon. Friend would be warmly welcomed in Bridgend, where there is an important manufacturing sector; Sony and Ford are the two major contributors. Although I would not expect her to say anything about the euro, about which we will hear something on Monday, does she agree that something close to the current exchange rate would be one that British industry could welcome in terms of any entry to the euro in the fairly near future?

Patricia Hewitt: I agree that the recent strengthening of the euro has significantly improved matters for Sony and Ford as well as for many other manufacturing companies that export to the eurozone. The views of those two companies and many others on the exchange rate and the single currency are very well known, as are mine, but the fuller answer that my hon. Friend would like will have to wait for the Chancellor's statement on Monday.

Tim Yeo: Will not future employment be affected not only by the exchange rate, but by the collapse in business investment and the slowdown in productivity growth? Will not it be affected by the worsening strike record and the deteriorating trade deficit? Does the Secretary of State accept responsibility for those failures or does she blame them on rogue elements in the Department of Trade and Industry? Is she aware that business people are today hoping that she may indeed be promoted in the forthcoming reshuffle? They are praying that that will be one case of rewards for failure that she does not attempt to block.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That did not have much to do with Bridgend.

Manufacturing

John MacDougall: What steps her Department is taking to increase the UK's manufacturing industry productivity; and if she will make a statement.

Alan Johnson: The Government's manufacturing strategy, published last year, identified seven key areas of activity for Government and industry that are vital for manufacturing success. We are taking action in all those areas to help British manufacturers improve productivity in very difficult global conditions.

John MacDougall: How much importance do the Government ascribe to research and development and diversification as ways of sustaining our manufacturing base in the face of increasing global competition?

Alan Johnson: The manufacturing strategy puts great emphasis on research and development, which is key to the driving up of innovation. We have put £300 million from the comprehensive spending review into scientific research and technological development, and invested a further £100 million to improve the flow of skilled scientists and engineers. That is crucial if we are to succeed. We will not succeed on the basis of low pay and low skills, nor should we want to. The only way in which we can compete in a fiercely competitive global manufacturing world is by innovating and adding value.

Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware of the latest figures in the House of Commons Library, which show that although there has indeed been a superficially impressive growth in manufacturing productivity over the last five years—13.5 per cent.—it is derived from two negatives, a decline in output of 3.5 per cent. and a collapse in manufacturing employment amounting to 17 per cent.? Do the Government distinguish between manufacturing productivity improvements achieved through contraction and mass sackings, and improvements achieved through growth and investment? When do they expect to complete the transition from the former to the latter?

Alan Johnson: We have never crowed about improvements in manufacturing, or in manufacturing productivity. Manufacturing is still going through a terrible time. It is going through a terrible time in Germany, it is going through a terrible time in Japan, and it is going through a terrible time in America. There are no easy solutions. However, the manufacturing strategy, which is about hard slog rather than quick fix, has involved the industry and trade unions and has established measures that should have been introduced many years ago. It will take a long time for the measures to bear fruit, but as manufacturing is worth a fifth of our gross domestic product, 4 million jobs and 60 per cent. of our exports, it is worth making the effort to help manufacturers.
	I was not aware of the statistics in the Library. I shall hurry away to have a look at them after Question Time.

Joan Walley: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the anger that is felt in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire generally about Waterford Wedgwood's shock announcement that it is to cut 1,085 jobs? We urgently need new, real jobs. No matter how productive factories such as the two that are to be closed may be, we cannot compete with labour costs abroad. Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to request the Cabinet to take a personal interest in what is happening in Stoke-on-Trent, and try to find quick ways of securing new jobs, retraining and other help for those who are to lose their present jobs?

Alan Johnson: I sympathise with my hon. Friend and her colleagues in Stoke-on-Trent. It was dreadful to hear that more than 1,000 jobs are to be lost. I believe that the HR1 notices have already been issued.
	As my hon. Friend will know, I went to Stoke-on-Trent a few months ago and spoke to the council and people in the ceramics industry. They are having a very difficult time. Waterford Wedgwood says that it is moving to China, where labour rates are 70 per cent. lower than those in the United Kingdom. As I have said, we cannot compete on that basis. Protectionism is not the answer; the answer is to introduce measures such as those we have introduced through the Ceramics Industry Forum with the aim of increasing innovation and driving up research and development.
	The Department has contributed to an investment of £20 million in the Chatterley Valley project, which is expected to bring 4,000 jobs to Stoke-on-Trent. I hope that that will, to some extent, mitigate the problems experienced by my hon. Friend's constituents following the recent announcement.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister's own departmental statistics show that manufacturing productivity has halved since 1997 and that over the same period 650,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. Yesterday, we heard that jobs will be lost at Wedgwood and that 1,500 jobs will be lost at Cable and Wireless. The hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) mentioned the number of jobs that have been lost in his constituency. Are we not suffering the consequences of the Government piling more and more burdens on businesses and removing our opt-out from the social chapter? Does he have a manufacturing policy to reverse those trends, or is he just going to sit back and do nothing?

Alan Johnson: Pick the nuts out of that one. According to the party that wants to be the official Opposition, we have increased manufacturing productivity. Now we are told that it is in a worse position. The two Opposition parties need to tell us what their pouch of fairydust is for solving the problems in manufacturing. If they have one, let us know about it.
	The hon. Gentleman said that one of the reasons why manufacturing is suffering is that we signed up to the social chapter. I am really pleased that he has emphasised the fact that his party still opposes basic workers' rights. I have not heard one manufacturer mention the issue of the social chapter. The Conservative party was not just an embarrassment to this country—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Broadband

Richard Ottaway: If she will make a statement on the level of competition in the broadband market.

Stephen Timms: The Government target is for the UK to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. The latest assessment indicated that at the end of March we had the third most competitive market—we are ahead now of the USA—based on measures of choice, price and regulatory framework.

Richard Ottaway: I am afraid that the reality is not matching the Minister's rhetoric. He must be aware that in suburbs of London and in the home counties there are areas where broadband is not available. What is needed is more competition. BT runs an arcane system of registration before it will introduce broadband to an area. Will he explain why his party defeated a Conservative party amendment to the Communications Bill that promoted more competition in broadband?

Stephen Timms: The reality is well ahead of my rhetoric. We passed the 2 million mark on broadband last month, only eight months after we reached 1 million. In April alone, another 163,000 broadband connections were added. That is probably the highest monthly figure ever. The two million connections are evenly divided between ADSL—asymmetric digital subscriber line—and cable. There is fierce competition going on—exactly the competition that the hon. Gentleman calls for. In the ADSL market, there are more than 100 competing resellers of the BT wholesale product. Indeed, I received an e-mail last week from a company offering broadband at less than £19 a month, so the competition is working. We need a competitive market. That is what we are getting and we are seeing the benefits of it.

David Borrow: What is the Department doing to ensure that public sector investment in broadband, particularly in education and health, can be piggybacked by communities that do not have access to broadband? In many areas, there is no competition because there is no broadband. If the public sector is investing in broadband, surely that investment should enable local communities in those areas to get access.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is an important part of the answer in rural areas in particular. I am chairing a ministerial steering group addressing exactly the issues that he raises. The public sector as a customer will make a key contribution. We will spend £1 billion across the public services on broadband over the next three years. That will lead to investment in telecommunications infrastructure for the public sector, which will then be available to other users such as small businesses and residential customers. Our task is to ensure that we manage that process to maximise the benefits in areas such as his. We are firmly committed to that, as are my colleagues in education, health and the other public services. I believe that we can be very optimistic about the outcome.

Renewable Energy

Peter Atkinson: What representations she has received from the Wood Panel Industries Federation on the Government's renewable energy policies.

Brian Wilson: Representations from the Wood Panel Industries Federation have been received on the impact of the renewables obligation on the industry and, in particular, on the encouragement given under the obligation for the use of UK forestry material by co-firing power stations.

Peter Atkinson: I thank the Minister for that reply, but he has not addressed the seriousness of the situation. Some 15,000 jobs in this important industry are threatened because these so-called green power stations will be able to outbid woodchip mills for the basic raw material that they need—woodchip, much of which comes from freshly felled trees. Surely the purpose of these power stations was to burn biomass produced by farmers on surplus acres, rather than to consume sustainable material that has a future in the furniture and kitchen manufacturing industries, and in the building trade.

Brian Wilson: A review of the renewables obligation is under way, and account will be taken of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, there is a further question, about an existing—perhaps I should say almost existing—biomass plant in Yorkshire, which I shall deal with a little later. By and large, the current problem is not an excessive number of biomass plants consuming all the United Kingdom's timber—on the contrary. However, it is clearly important that we get the balance right, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is offering grants for the growing of trees for specific use in biomass plants. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that full account will be taken of the points that he makes on the industry's behalf.

Martin O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend accept that the rather relaxed tone that he adopts towards the DEFRA review is not in keeping with the time scale with which the timber processing industry is confronted? For example, 50 per cent. of the available timber in Scotland has been bought by a single power station on the back of substantial subsidies for renewable generation. There is every possibility that in the ensuing 12 months there will be insufficient timber to enable Scottish processing plants to continue. Will my hon. Friend therefore accede to the request, made to him by a number of colleagues on both sides of the House, to meet him to discuss this urgent matter as soon as possible? I wrote to him two weeks ago and I await a reply; I am anxious that I get one as soon as possible.

Brian Wilson: The request for a meeting has yet to reach me, but I shall of course agree to one. I have never refused my hon. Friend—or, I think, any other Member of this House—a meeting, and I should be delighted to discuss this issue.

Andrew Robathan: We support the aspiration in the energy White Paper to increase the percentage of electricity generated from renewable power sources, as, of course, does the Renewable Power Association. Sadly, the RPA estimates that the Government will fail to meet their 2010 target of 10 per cent. generation from renewable sources—only some 7 per cent. will be so generated—and their 2020 target of 20 per cent. generation from renewable sources, with only some 12 per cent. being so generated. How do the Government answer this absolutely fundamental criticism of a central plank of their energy policy from those whom they expect to implement it?

Brian Wilson: The Government will fail to meet these targets only if a number of conditions have not been met. One reason why they would not be met is if we remained almost exclusively dependent for our renewables targets on hydro and onshore wind—the only technologies that are contributing significantly at the moment. That is why we are backing biomass, photovoltaics and wave and tidal. We have to extend the range of technologies that can contribute. If we start from a defeatist point of view and say that we will not meet the targets, they will indeed not be met. They can and will be met only if we do a great deal to give substance to the words that we have committed ourselves to, and it is my job to make sure that that happens.

World Trade

David Taylor: What recent discussions she has had with the World Trade Organisation on the impact of international trade liberalisation on the relief of global poverty; and if she will make a statement.

Ben Chapman: What action she is taking to promote the interests of developing countries in the world trade round.

Patricia Hewitt: I welcome the reaffirmation by G8 leaders earlier this week of their commitment to a successful conclusion of the Doha development round, which would bring significant benefits in trade to developing countries. That is why we are working so hard to make progress in the WTO talks. In addition to the visits that I have recently made to South Africa, India and Thailand, I have today accepted an invitation from Christian Aid to meet producers and farmers in central America, on our way to the WTO meeting in Cancun in September.

David Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) said that current free trade orthodoxy is wrong in forcing poor countries to open up their markets to competition, and in reducing their Governments' protection of vulnerable industries. Does the Secretary of State agree with her predecessor that the World Trade Organisation rules of international trade are indeed stacked against poorer countries, in favour of fat-cat multinationals? Would not managed trade with a focus on poverty reduction be a better alternative? Why can the scales on ministerial eyes be removed only with a P45?

Patricia Hewitt: Since I became Secretary of State I have said that it is essential that market opening in developing countries is phased to take account of their state of development, and that the liberalisation of markets is accompanied by effective regulation. We saw the effects of the lack of such regulation in the financial disasters in some developing countries a few years ago. However, I do not agree that subsidies and long-term protectionism are the way forward for developing countries. It is important that we in the developed world listen to the increasingly urgent pleas of developing country Governments themselves—and their producers—who want access to trade, and in particular to trade on free and fair terms with the developed countries. The developing countries would also benefit from reducing the tariff barriers that they put up against one another.

Ben Chapman: The WTO is a rules-based organisation, and one of the key ways of helping developing countries is to provide capacity building to empower them to play by those rules. The most significant current issue is the EU agricultural meeting later this month. The fact is that the best thing that the EU could do is to reform the common agricultural policy, in particular by removing export subsidies that effectively prevent developing country farmers from accessing overseas markets. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will do all in her power to press the EU on that point?

Patricia Hewitt: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I have been working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to that end. Our Government are the leaders in pressing for radical reform of the common agricultural policy across the European Union. Not only does the CAP cost the average European family of four an extra £475 a year on our food bills, but as my hon. Friend rightly says, it condemns farmers in the poorest countries of the world to absolute poverty. Commissioner Fischler's proposals on CAP reform provide an excellent opportunity to move that agenda forward, above all for the sake of producers in developing countries. I hope that the Agriculture Council will seize the opportunity and agree those proposals next week.

Robert Key: Will the Secretary of State tell us where she will be on Saturday 28 June? Will she be in her constituency, as I will, supporting trade justice day and her constituents who are making a real effort to draw to the Government's attention the failures of the world's developed community in that respect?

Patricia Hewitt: Yes.

Adam Price: Does the Secretary of State not accept that the liberalisation of agriculture is, as we have heard, a potentially double-edged sword for developing countries? The Government of the Philippines, for example, have argued that opening up markets to the large agribusiness conglomerates of the western world could undermine local food production systems in the developing countries.

Patricia Hewitt: When I last met the Trade Minister for the Philippines, his main concern was to ensure access to European markets for their canned tuna exports. That was a major issue, as the hon. Gentleman may recall, at the discussions in Doha. The main issue is to ensure that the European Union and the United States stop preaching free trade abroad while practising protectionism at home. The WTO rules already permit "special and differential treatment", to use the jargon, so that developing countries can open their markets in an appropriate fashion. That is the way to proceed and, with the majority of WTO members being developing countries, that is how we can proceed, providing that we in the European Union and the United States face up to our own responsibilities

Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend will know that protectionism is regarded nowadays by the international community not as a 13-letter word but as a four-letter word. How can we ensure that the same fate that befell Zambia, Haiti, Mali, Nepal and Peru does not befall other developing nations? What measures will the Government propose to avoid unfettered liberalisation happening too rapidly in those markets?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government have led the way in supporting investment in developing countries for trade-related capacity building, so that they can engage more effectively in the negotiations within the WTO, and also so that they can ensure that they put in place the necessary regulation to help them with a phased opening of their markets.
	Of course, it is possible for developing countries to take advantage of greater trade and economic reform only if they also put in place the necessary reforms to their own systems of governance. That is an issue to which we direct much support and attention through our aid and development work.

John Bercow: I could not possibly be as unkind to the Secretary of State as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) was. Given that protection and export subsidies in the agricultural sector of up to £1 billion a day now represent five times the level of international development assistance and are doing grave damage to the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world, does she agree that it is now time—consistent with what she has said—for the developed world to stop being so selfish and to start to recognise that genuine free trade, subject to the normal checks and balances, is the greatest wealth-creating mechanism known to mankind and the best source of help for the most vulnerable people the world over?

Patricia Hewitt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Our experience in the European Union is a good example of how countries—six of them, initially—came out of the devastation at the end of the second world war, through a process of free and fair trade among them, to the prosperity that we enjoy today. It is simply not acceptable that we in the European Union subsidise our dairy farmers to the tune of $2 a day for every head of cattle in Europe, when more than 1 billion people in the developing world live on less than that amount. Nor is it acceptable that the United States continues to subsidise its cotton farmers by a total sum significantly greater than the economy of several poor African countries. That argument is being made with increasing force in both the developed and the developing world. The issue for the Agriculture Council next week, and for the US Administration, is whether we will produce significant measures that will meet the commitment that we made at Doha to reduce, with the aim of phasing out completely, the trade-distorting subsidies that we put on our agriculture exports.

Renewable Energy

John Grogan: If she will make a statement on the prospects for renewable energy plants fuelled by willow coppice.

Brian Wilson: The Government are committed to the development of all forms of bioenergy, including renewable energy plants fuelled by wood coppice. We provide support, ranging from research and development to the creation of a market for energy generation from energy crops, including wood coppice, through the renewables obligation and the bioenergy capital grants scheme.

John Grogan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of the Arbre plant near Selby, which is fuelled by willow coppice, has implications not only for the 50 growers who supply willow coppice to the plant, but for confidence in the entire energy crops sector? Will he ensure that a meeting takes place urgently between his officials, the new American owners of the plant, representatives of the European Commission, which has invested £10 million in the plant, and the Non-Fossil Fuels Purchasing Agency, which has a contract with the plant, to see if there is a viable way forward?

Brian Wilson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and contact has been made with the company already. The decision to sell to that company was made by the liquidator. It is very much in everyone's interests that there should be the sort of contact that my hon. Friend seeks, and that we do everything possible to encourage the new owners to take Arbre forward as an ongoing and, I hope, viable proposition. I should make it absolutely clear that we have never turned down any request for support for Arbre. It is, of course, open to the new owners to talk to us about that as well.

Richard Page: What percentage of our energy will be provided by willow coppicing, and how does that compare with the possible percentage that could be produced through encouraging the burning of waste paper and packaging?

Brian Wilson: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman those figures, for the very good reason that we do not have prescriptive targets for each particular technology. There is a great deal of potential in the biomass sector, and willow coppice is only one of the sources. So far, however, very little of that potential has been fulfilled. I agree with the implication of the question, which is that waste technologies contribute more in the short term when they are counted as renewables, and they have the potential to contribute much more. I have visited a number of such plants, and I have been impressed with some of the technologies involved. We should not rule out any of the technologies, but it is extremely important that we test, sooner rather than later, some of the assumptions about whether the technologies will contribute anything of significance to the targets. We are putting a lot of money into biomass, and we want to see some return on it soon.

Tony Clarke: My hon. Friend will be aware that most of the product burned in the renewable energy plants is not willow coppice but waste wood products. What is the economic or environmental sense of a subsidy that allows wood products to be purchased at £40 a tonne, when the wood panel industry can buy it at £20 a tonne? That industry keeps 15,000 people in jobs. Instead of burning wood products and producing carbon, it recycles the material and ensures that the carbon is locked in. Surely there is a need for an urgent review, as was suggested earlier? We need to protect those 15,000 jobs and end carbon emissions to the atmosphere by recycling and locking that carbon in.

Brian Wilson: As I said in response to the earlier question, this is an important matter. A review of the renewables obligation and of any anomalies that it might throw up is under way. I should be very pleased to meet industry representatives and any hon. Members who might have a proper interest in this matter.

Community Pharmacies

Peter Viggers: What representations she has received on the future of community pharmacies.

Melanie Johnson: A very substantial number and range of stakeholders have been feeding in their views on the Office of Fair Trading's report, both through the appropriate Health Departments and directly to the Department of Trade and Industry.

Peter Viggers: Does the Minister agree that the present structure of community pharmacies provides a high level of access to patients, including vulnerable patients such as those who are elderly, in rural areas and on lower incomes? Does she agree that when the Government consider the OFT report it is very important that health policy should not lose out to competition policy?

Melanie Johnson: I agree that we need to achieve a balanced package in this area, and proposals for such a package will be offered for consultation before the summer recess. We have made it clear that we favour change to open up the market and to improve quality and access. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that access is very important, but we do not want to diminish pharmacies' crucial role in local and rural communities, and in respect of people who do not have easy access to transport.

Adrian Bailey: I am concerned that my hon. Friend's comments make this issue sound predominantly a rural matter. However, inner-city areas such as my constituency have a disproportionately high number of elderly people who use community pharmacy facilities. Given the low level of car ownership among those people, is not it essential that the existing community pharmacy network is maintained?

Melanie Johnson: I can only agree strongly with my hon. Friend that community pharmacies are as important to inner-city areas as they are to rural and poorer areas. We have been well aware of that in our work to produce a balanced package. The Department of Health, which leads on the health policy aspects of the package, has had considerable input, and it is very conscious of these matters.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While I fully endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on health access, does the Minister understand that in rural areas, where there may be only one independent pharmacy in a small rural town, it will be difficult for that pharmacy to compete with large out-of-town supermarkets? Does she understand that such a pharmacy provides not only health advice but a range of social services advice, and that, when combined with the loss of many other rural facilities—for example, post offices, magistrates courts and police stations—it will be a heavy blow if the only independent pharmacy is forced to close because of full competition?

Melanie Johnson: It is for just that reason that we are balancing health and competition and that we have put the emphasis on continuing, and indeed broadening access. That issue obviously needs special consideration in respect of rural and more isolated pharmacies. Indeed, the Department of Health already has support systems for essential small pharmacies in any event. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that in March 1992 there were 9,765 pharmacies, as against 9,756 in 2002, so pharmacy distribution and the number of pharmacies has been maintained at much the same level over the past decade or so.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister was asked—

Iraq

Anne Begg: What action she is taking to ensure that women play a full part in a new Iraqi Government.

Patricia Hewitt: As well as meeting a representative group of Iraqi women exiles, we arranged last week for a meeting of about 40 Iraqi women in Baghdad with Ambassador Bremer and John Sawers, the UK special representative in Iraq. That meeting was also attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who is now the Prime Minister's special representative on human rights in Iraq. In due course, I, too, shall be going to Baghdad to help to support Iraqi women's participation in the political and reconstruction process.

Anne Begg: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. It is heartening that there are moves to get women involved, as I am sure that, like me and many of my constituents, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the many images from Iraq showing that all the people involved in shaping the new Government are male. I fear that that does not augur well for the involvement of women in Iraq's Government. Is she as concerned as me that, if the Baghdad conference does not take place, women will be further excluded from any interim authority that is set up?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. She and I were both concerned that so few women attended the last conference held in Baghdad, and indeed in Nasiriyah. After the women's meeting last week, a steering group of seven women was set up. They are focusing on ensuring that women come forward and become part of the Iraqi interim administration. I agree that that is especially important if, as now seems likely, security considerations and the state of political debate make it impossible for the Baghdad conference to go ahead as initially planned.

Caroline Spelman: Certainly, we believe that women should play a full and active role in governing Iraq, but the priority right now is that they are not safe and that they cannot live normal lives. There are daily abductions of women and girls throughout the country. For example, on 13 May, 13 girls were abducted at gunpoint from a school in central Baghdad, perhaps to be sold into prostitution or for human trafficking—who knows? Given that the coalition forces are legally obliged to maintain the rule of law, can the Minister tell us what is being done to prevent such crimes and to bring those responsible for them to justice?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Lady is right. The women at last week's meeting made it clear that of course security is a top priority for them, just as it is for the coalition administration. We are working closely with the American Administration and the coalition provisional authority in Baghdad, as well as in Basra—where the security situation, although not perfect, is considerably better—to put in place much more effective policing-type security to protect the citizens of Iraq and, of course, to continue protecting coalition troops.
	However, let me stress that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, who is still in Baghdad and with whom I was in touch only yesterday, was heartened by the signs of normal life returning to Baghdad, including large numbers of women collecting their children from school on the school run. It is not all bad news from Baghdad, and several of the Iraqi women with whom I am in touch in Britain are already planning their return to Iraq. Indeed, they are being encouraged by their families to do so.

Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the superb job that she is doing in promoting the interests of Iraqi women. Will she particularly look at the fact that the US-led administration have appointed only male lawyers and male judges to the group that is working up a new legal code for Iraq? She will appreciate, as I do, the critical nature of the legal code when it comes to ensuring women's rights in Iraq in the future.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not only for her comments but for the very active role that she has been playing in this whole process. She makes an important point, and I will bring it urgently to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and of John Sawers. In my discussions with Iraqi women and with a broader group of women from Muslim communities in Britain, it has become clear that we need to ensure that women Muslim scholars are fully engaged in the development of the new legal code in Iraq.

Gender Equality

Judy Mallaber: What steps she is taking to ensure that Government Departments promote gender equality.

Patricia Hewitt: Later this month, I will be publishing "Delivering on Gender Equality", which will set out policies and targets across Government for delivering improvements in this area.

Judy Mallaber: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of that review, as Departments should be seen to be taking a lead on equality. On the specific issue of tackling pay inequality, now that the deadline for undertaking equal pay reviews across Departments and agencies has now passed, what progress is being made in implementing the results of those reviews?

Patricia Hewitt: The report that I will be publishing shortly refers to how we will deliver on the gender equality public service agreement target that we have already published. As far as the equal pay reviews and audits are concerned, I am glad to say that 67 Departments and agencies, representing nine out of 10 civil servants, have now completed their pay reviews and have submitted action plans. Those are now being pulled together in the Cabinet Office, and we will publish a summary report of the findings by the end of July.

Sandra Gidley: The report is welcome, but the Minister may recall that a previous Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), first announced that the Government would produce an annual report in 1998. Clearly, the report is five years too late, so is it not yet another example of a part-time effort from a part-time Ministry?

Patricia Hewitt: I am very sorry to hear the hon. Lady falling into the trap of suggesting that part-time jobs are not worth while. It reminds me of some of the comments that we used to hear in the 1980s from the not then reconstructed brethren in the trade union movement, who used to say when the employment figures were published, "Well, those are only part-time jobs, so they don't count." I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Lady will want to withdraw that remark.
	The Government have published annual reports on how we are delivering on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. As we agreed for the first time last year the gender equality public service agreement, it is not surprising that this will be the first report on how we will deliver progress towards that goal. We are making a great deal of progress and we will continue to do so, with or without the hon. Lady's support.

Scientific Careers

Doug Naysmith: What steps she is taking to encourage women to take up careers as (a) scientists, (b) technologists and (c) engineers.

Patricia Hewitt: On 28 April, I launched a new strategy to improve the participation of women in science, engineering and technology careers. Central to that new strategy is the establishment of a resource centre that will move that agenda forward and encourage more women to take up and to stay and to succeed in science, engineering and technology careers.

Doug Naysmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will she ensure that sufficient resources are made available for the implementation of that strategy, much of which is based on Susan Greenfield's excellent recent report? Will she ensure that sufficient resources are made available to allow many of its recommendations to be implemented?

Patricia Hewitt: Yes, I will. We have already secured additional funding worth nearly £1 million a year to cover all the activities of the new resource centre. That centre will also put together a plan for additional investment to ensure that women with science and technology qualifications who are not in employment are helped to return to employment, which should amount to an additional £500,000.

Andrew Dismore: May I remind my right hon. Friend that many women scientists work at the National Institute for Medical Research? Their careers are somewhat uncertain because of the proposal to relocate the institute. Will she do what she can to secure an early decision on that, because it is causing significant recruitment and retention problems at the NIMR, especially for women scientists?

Patricia Hewitt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in shifting that question. As he implies, no decision has been made on the future of the centre. That is a matter for the Medical Research Council, which is consulting closely on the centre's future with staff and other stakeholders.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Can I ask the Leader of the House if he would like, please, to give us the business for next week?

John Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for asking a staggered question to allow me to get to the Dispatch Box.
	The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 9 June—Second Reading of the Courts Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 10 June—Motions to provide for the carry-over of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.
	Motion to approve a money resolution on the Sustainable Energy Bill.
	The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
	Wednesday 11 June—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be confirmed.
	Thursday 12 June—Debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 13 June—Private Members Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 16 June—Remaining stages of the Licensing Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 17 June—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 18 June—Debate on "European Affairs" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 19 June—Estimates [3rd Allotted Day]. Subject to be confirmed by the Liaison Committee.
	Friday 20 June—Private Members Bills.

Eric Forth: I am grateful, as ever, to the Leader of the House for letting us have the business.
	The Leader of the House will know that he was quoted in yesterday's Times—accurately, I think—as saying:
	"There have been uncorroborated briefings by a potentially rogue element — or indeed rogue elements — in the intelligence services."
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
	"of course there was somebody from within the intelligence community who spoke to the media."—[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 147.]
	Both the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister are making serious allegations about the intelligence services or rogue elements within them. In that context, will the Leader of the House reassure us that the Intelligence and Security Committee on which the Prime Minister placed such reliance yesterday will include that in its terms of reference and investigation?
	In what I can describe only as the notorious interview with John Humphrys on Radio 4 yesterday morning, the Leader of the House—I shall quote from the transcript; I know how much he likes transcripts—said:
	"Well it, you know the way we do things in this country is through Select Committees and I no more dictate what the Select Committees will choose to investigate than, than the Prime Minister dictates what the intelligence services will choose to discover, analyse and produce as information."
	That was a touching endorsement of how he sees the role of Committees.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Intelligence and Security Committee is appointed by the Prime Minister, reports to the Prime Minister and, indeed, that the Act that set up the Committee gives the Prime Minister the right to edit or censor its reports? In that context, why do we have to place such reliance, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, on a Committee that is the Prime Minister's own creature? Why can we not have, as the Opposition propose, an independent and impartial tribunal set up by statute and chaired by a senior judge? Why are the Government so afraid of that, as they appear to be?
	You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday at column 195 the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that "we simply were wrong." He meant the Government and was talking about weapons of mass destruction. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) said:
	"the Prime Minister misled us".—[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 207.]
	That is what those former Cabinet Ministers said. In the context of that, can we be reassured that both the Intelligence and Security Committee and, indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee will consider those serious accusations by former Cabinet Ministers about the conduct of the Prime Minister and the Government in the run-up to the hostilities in Iraq? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman confirms that.
	On a different matter—[Interruption.] Well, I can do more if hon. Members want.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman can do more only if it is about next week's business.

Eric Forth: Mr. Speaker, next week can we finally have the debate on pensions—[Interruption.] It was promised on 20 January by the then Pensions Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). He promised a debate in Government time on the Green Paper on pensions that was issued in January. Yet in yesterday's debate the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), said that we would have a White Paper on pensions by the recess. We are now in the bizarre position of having had a Green Paper since the beginning of the year and moving straight to a White Paper before the recess without a proper debate in the interim in Government time led by a Pensions Minister because there still is not a Pensions Minister. Will there be a reshuffle to appoint a Pensions Minister next week and will we have a debate then? That is the question.
	I should also like to know whether next week we could have a debate arising from yesterday's Audit Commission report. Does the Leader of the House think that there were perhaps rogue elements in the Audit Commission who said:
	"The majority of trusts"—
	NHS trusts—
	"were finding it difficult to balance their books—some used new money, intended to boost services, to meet underlying financial problems. The majority of trusts were finding it hard to recruit enough extra doctors and nurses"?
	The report went on to say:
	"it is highly likely that growth monies will have been invested in funding the deficit."
	It goes on further to say:
	"The Annual Development Plan assumed that growth monies would be used to fund deficits by delaying project starts until the year end."
	Those are very serious matters and they have been highlighted by the Audit Commission. I hope that we will have an urgent debate on them because they appear completely to undermine the Government's repeated claims that the NHS is in good health. Can we please have an immediate debate?

John Reid: The right hon. Gentleman was obviously so intoxicated with my performance yesterday that he missed the fact that we had a pensions debate. [Hon. Members: "In Government time."] It is funny how quickly Conservatives get worked up. They should take a lesson from Mr. Humphrys who remains calm throughout. Secondly, we have pensions questions next week. We will also probably have a statement next week on pensions. I shall have firmer details on that later specifically to please the right hon. Gentleman.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the NHS audit. I always welcome opportunities to debate the NHS in all its aspects, including Audit Commission reports, not least because we are putting in twice as much of an increase than any other Government in the history of the service. We have put in tens of thousands of extra nurses and we have a new hospital building programme. A debate that highlighted the disastrous effects of the 20 per cent. cuts that the Opposition would impose on the health service would be worth having.
	On the more important subject that the right hon. Gentleman raised—it is an important subject, and I want to make sure that, whether unwittingly or through mischief, no one misinterprets what I said yesterday, because there are mischievous elements around, some of them malevolent—let me repeat what I said on the "Today" programme. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has also read those comments in the transcript, but he did not share them with the House. I said:
	"I have the greatest respect for our intelligence services."
	I also said that I know from working with them in Northern Ireland and as Minister for the Armed Forces that they are courageous, loyal, professional, self-sacrificing, committed and dedicated people. Indeed, my life and hundreds—perhaps thousands—of other lives depend on those services.
	The people whom I was attacking, whom I am asked to name, I cannot name because they are anonymous. The right hon. Gentleman might ask Mr. Gilligan, the reporter who has been producing reports based on their information, who they are. I do not know them, I do not know their status, but I do know that they have been undermining or attempting to undermine the integrity of our intelligence services, up to and including the Joint Intelligence Committee and its chairman. Anyone who attempts to do that is an enemy of mine, and I believe should be an enemy of those on the Opposition Benches.
	I turn to the other question that was asked about the inquiry. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which has been dismissed for its deficiency by the right hon. Gentleman, was set up by the previous Conservative Government, and its terms of reference were established by the previous intelli—I almost said intelligent Conservative Government, which of course would have been a contradiction in terms. The terms of reference were established by the previous Conservative Government. I believe that that Committee consists of people whose seniority, wisdom and integrity should be unquestioned throughout the House, and I certainly do not question it.
	It is not true that the Committee's opinions, publications or intended publications can be dismissed at will by the Prime Minister. What the right hon. Gentleman did not say is that—I quote from section 10(7) of the Intelligences Services Act 1994 which established the Committee—
	"If it appears to the Prime Minister,"—
	and the words that the right hon. Gentleman missed out were
	"after consultation with the Committee, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of either of the Services"—
	that is, our intelligence services, which the Government are determined to protect—
	"or, as the case may be, GCHQ, the Prime Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report"—
	in other words, after consultation with the Committee itself. I believe that we should have confidence in that Committee to discharge its functions.
	Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Hon. Members: "Mr. Speaker."] I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members get upset. I am one of those, unlike some Opposition Members, who have taken great pleasure in your rise through the House from the time that we were very young men. I have some good news for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and some bad news. As he will have noticed from the photographs this morning, when the Prime Minister comes to the House with a tabbed book, he does not have a tab on it marked "IDS", which says a lot, does it not? The good news, as I suppose it is testimony to the stature of the right hon. Gentleman, is that I do have a tab marked "Eric Forth".
	The bad news is that I am able to read transcripts as well. I have read the transcript of the right hon. Gentleman's defence of the Leader of the Opposition this morning on "Today". Perhaps we can debate this next week. He was asked by Mr. Naughtie, whom I know well
	"Why didn't your leader knock Mr. Blair to pulp at the dispatch box yesterday?"
	The right hon. Gentleman said:
	"Well"—
	The transcript then says "(pause)". He added:
	"that's a fascinating parliamentary question, and as I come up to celebrating my twentieth anniversary in the House—a great privilege and honour—I can reflect on that."
	I will allow right hon. and hon. Members to decide how high in the league table of robust defences of our leaders that answer comes.[Laughter.]

Paul Tyler: The Leader of the House has referred to a transcript from the "Today" show—[Hon. Members: "Show?"] It is often referred to as the John and Jim show. As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the exchanges with the rogue element or perhaps rogue elephant on the Conservative Front Bench, may I draw his attention to the fact that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made no mention during his exchanges on "Today" that the Prime Minister got his war because Conservative Members voted for it? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise, as Leader of the House, that it is not only the credibility of the Prime Minister that is at stake now, but the credibility of the whole House?
	Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I would ever accuse the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst of being gullible, but it is extremely important that the information that was given to all Members, including the Conservative Members who voted for the war, was accurate. Therefore I ask the Leader of the House whether he is prepared to arrange for a statement next week, or a debate, on the particular information that was given to the House—I will come to a specific issue in a moment—and the way in which the House will now deal with it.
	Has the Leader of the House noticed, for example, that the United States Senate has set up a joint inquiry into these issues? Why cannot we in this place have a joint inquiry involving the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, to ensure that the whole issue is properly covered and that there is proper co-ordination between the two Committees? What arrangements does the Leader of the House intend to make to ensure that the reports of the two Committees are properly co-ordinated and brought to the Floor of the House?
	I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is the credibility of the way in which the House does its business and scrutinises Government that is on the line, as well as, specifically, the credibility of the Prime Minister. It may be that the Prime Minister and the Government will look shifty and slippery if the outcome is that we were led into war under false pretences but, not only that, quite frankly, the House will look silly for taking the decision that we did on false information.
	I ask the Leader of the House specifically to consider the issue raised yesterday by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the former Foreign Secretary, with the Prime Minister. He asked specifically about the issue of the purchase by Iraq of uranium for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister said that he was
	"not in a position to say whether"—[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 102, c. 154.]
	that information, on which the advice was given to the House, was correct.
	On 24 September, the Prime Minister said:
	"we know that Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 4.]
	That was repeated in the so-called dodgy dossier, which said:
	"We judge Iraq has sought . . . "
	uranium.
	On 28 January, President Bush said:
	"The British Government has learnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
	Obviously he was taking his advice from the British Government. However, on 7 March, at the United Nations Security Council, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency said that the reports were not authentic. Hans Blix called them a falsification. On 2 June, Colin Powell said that he did not believe that there was "solid enough" authentication.
	When will we get an answer to the question of the previous Foreign Secretary? Can we have it next week?

John Reid: First, the hon. Gentleman asked whether we could debate various matters relating to Iraq. I think that even the worst enemy of this Government would concede that we have made probably more time available to debate Iraq, the run-up to what happened there and its various aspects than any other Government have done previously in such circumstances. Of course, we will try to allow even more time, but we have to balance the priorities of the House.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of the security services. I do not know how to make this any plainer to him. The nature of the collection of the intelligence means that thousands and perhaps millions of pieces of disparate information are brought together. Some of them are corroborated, some are not, some are human intelligence, some are technical, some are from above the sky, some are from beneath the waves, some are photographs and some are gossip. All of them are partial and fragmentary, so the job of making a judgment on that basis is a very difficult one, and it is one that I believe our security services discharge with fantastic capability and professionalism.
	It is possible for human beings to make mistakes—of course it is—but let me make the distinction that the hon. Gentleman crossed over again in using the term "false pretences". For the past week, the allegation has been that information that the Government and the chiefs of our intelligence services knew to be wrong was put into the public domain. That is not an accusation that we might have made a mistake, but an accusation of dishonesty against the Government and the intelligence services.

Paul Tyler: indicated dissent.

John Reid: "False pretences" repeats that accusation. That is completely and utterly untrue and it is a manifest slur not only on the politicians, but on the chairman and everyone involved in the Joint Intelligence Committee, and we reject it. I make that absolutely plain as far as the Liberal party is concerned.
	On the Intelligence and Security Committee, of course, on Niger and everywhere else, it will be able to look at the issue in the round and consider the specific piece of information that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in the context of anything else that may be there. That is up to the Committee. He also suggested that it is not adequate. Since he mentioned the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), let me use his words about that Committee:
	"The Committee's work necessarily is not in the open. It would sharply inhibit the candour with which its questions were answered if it met in open session. Some hon. Members may imagine that, because the Committee meets and takes evidence in private, it provides an easy life for its witnesses."
	That is what the hon. Gentleman implied. The former Foreign Secretary continued:
	"I should disabuse the House of that idea. As one of those who has given evidence to the Committee, I can assure the House that the fact that the meeting takes place in private does not in any way diminish the acuteness of the questioning, which is just as testing as any in front of the press."—[Official Report, 2 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 578.]
	All I would say is that I cannot think of a better way of validating the competence, ability and integrity of that Committee. Having asked for an inquiry, we should let it get on with it.

Kali Mountford: Can the House have an early opportunity to consider the findings of Cancer Research UK, which has found that fewer women are now dying from cancer? In my constituency, women have written to me about how highly they value local services, including not only clinical services, but aftercare. Should we not share those experiences across the House, so that where there is good practice, it can be shared in all constituencies so that even fewer women die from cancer and women get the counselling that they deserve and need?

John Reid: Absolutely. I hope that those sentiments will be accepted throughout the House. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has highlighted this matter and that the Cancer Research UK report states that deaths from breast cancer are down significantly and that five-year survival rates for breast cancer are improving all the while. According to reports published last year by Cancer Research UK and the European Institute of Oncology, Britain has had the world's biggest decrease in deaths from breast cancer in the past decade. Since 1960, Britain has had the largest decline in breast cancer deaths in the European Union. I therefore hope very much that we will find sufficient time to debate that issue, as well as many other aspects of women's health.

Desmond Swayne: May I reinforce the request for a debate on the security services next week, which would allow the high opinion that the Leader of the House has expressed to be shared and agreed across the House? Such a debate would also provide him with an opportunity to remind the House just how many weeks the Wilson Government lasted after the then Prime Minister announced that he was being undermined by elements of the security services.

John Reid: I always try to find time for the hon. Gentleman, but he need not wait, because he could start to contribute by using his time not to attack those of us who were defending the security services, but to attack those who are spreading misinformation suggesting that the leadership and the security services are lacking in competence or integrity.

Kevin Barron: Can my right hon. Friend find time next week or the week after for a debate on the responsibilities of the media and its regulation in particular? He will know that, on 31 May this year, The Guardian ran on its front page an article about an alleged meeting between the Foreign Secretary and his US counterpart in the Waldorf hotel in New York. Today, on page 25, there is a 2-in column retraction of that claim and an apology for it. It is about time that we got some balance in media reporting in this country.

John Reid: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised at all to know that I agree with every word that he has said.

Andrew MacKay: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, next week, he will be contacting the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the previous Government Chief Whip, to volunteer information about rogue elements in the security services and to give evidence following up the very serious allegations that he made in The Times yesterday?

John Reid: If anyone wishes to find who is spreading the misinformation, they should speak to people who are claiming that information as the source of the stories. Those allegations were made to undermine the Government and the security forces. I made allegations about people who are unknown and anonymous, and whose position is not known, but on whose word the integrity of our security services and Joint Intelligence Committee is being impugned. I cannot stand by and allow that to happen. Given that the right hon. Gentleman previously held a position in connection with Northern Ireland, I would have hoped that he would be attacking those who are spreading misinformation about our security services, rather than defending those who are maligning them.

David Cairns: Ninety per cent. of the heroin on the streets of Hamilton, North and Bellshill, as well as Inverclyde, originates in Afghanistan. Given that, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the recent United Nations report predicting that this year's poppy harvest in Afghanistan will be the largest ever? We must take steps now to ensure that the poppy that will be harvested in the autumn does not become the raw opium that becomes heroin on sale in his constituency and mine. Does he agree that cheap heroin on the streets of Britain is not a price that we have to pay for the war on terrorism?

John Reid: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary.

Andrew Rosindell: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate the appalling mismanagement of the European Union's aid budget, particularly with regard to Ethiopia, following the comments of Sir Bob Geldof, who described it as appalling and pathetic?

John Reid: I am always prepared to try to find time for discussions on overseas aid, not least because this Government have a proud record on reversing the cuts that had been so disgracefully imposed by the previous Government. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes a point about criticism of how the European aid budget is disbursed in some cases and I know that the Government have had their reservations about that. Even if we cannot have a debate in the Chamber, I am sure that there will be an opportunity either in Adjournment debates or Westminster Hall, but I shall certainly seek to ensure that we pay some attention to that matter.

Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the role of the oldest political party in Iraq, which was founded in 1934 and includes Sunni, Shi'a, Kurds, Turkomans, Assyrians, Christians and Jews, and works with middle-of-the-road parties in trying to establish pluralism and democracy? Should not the role of the Iraqi Communist party be a matter that is considered in the building of a new Iraq, and should not new Labour at least understand the nature of new communism?

John Reid: I am not sure that I am qualified to answer that question.

David Burnside: Would the Leader of the House find time to debate next week the continuation of locally based and recruited security support for the civil power in Northern Ireland? He will know from his experience that there has been no time since 1920 when we have not had locally-based and recruited mobile armed back-up to the civil power: first the A, B and C special constabulary; then, in the 1970s and for the next 30 years the Ulster Defence Regiment; then, from the mid-1990s, the home-based battalions—now three—of the Royal Irish Regiment. For the first time ever, the security of the people of Northern Ireland is being put at risk by this Government. Will he find time to have that debate so that we can get a commitment from the Government to continue home-based, locally recruited back-up for the police in Northern Ireland—that is, the home battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment?

John Reid: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be noted by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as well as by the Secretary of State for Defence, and I have no doubt that he will find opportunities, in Adjournment debates or in other ways, to raise the matter again.

Linda Gilroy: I welcome and agree with my right hon. Friend's confidence in debating our health policies. May I urge him to have a debate on the Floor of the House on the Audit Commission report on the NHS plan, which would give us an opportunity to examine the way in which the investment to which he referred is improving capacity and bringing progress? It would also give us an opportunity to contrast that with the cuts proposed by Conservative Members and with what many of us believe to be a Trojan horse—namely, the proposal to have passports in the NHS.

John Reid: Yes, indeed. As I said to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I am pleased to try to find time to debate the NHS at any time, and that applies to the Audit Commission report. That report was based on a snapshot of the situation halfway through the last financial year. The NHS has moved on since then, and we are pleased that performance at the end of the year is even better. The resources and reforms are beginning to bite. Contrary to what the report implies, we expect that the majority of NHS trusts, and the NHS as a whole, will end the year in financial balance. I suspect that the demand from Conservative Members that we debate the report will quickly diminish once the year-end figures start to come out.

Patsy Calton: Will the Leader of the House say what steps are being taken to ensure fair scientific scrutiny of the evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I understand from a note that I have obtained from the Library that only one of the Committees concerned has a member with any scientific qualifications.

John Reid: The hon. Lady asks about scrutiny of evidence. I have already made some comments about the difficult task that faces people in assessing and analysing the evidence. I have every confidence in the first step of that, which is the operational intelligence assessment that is being carried out by our intelligence services. I think, however, that she is referring to the second step, which is the work of the Committees and their potential capability for securing expertise to make judgments of a technical nature. I am sure that the Committees will be able to make arrangements to supply themselves with such capabilities, and that the House would want them to be able to do so.

Eric Martlew: May I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate in the near future on the need to streamline the police disciplinary procedures? Yesterday in Cumbria, an internal inquiry that cost £2 million and took three years to complete collapsed owing to lack of evidence. It concerned a minor complaint about the misuse of police vehicles. It not only cost a fortune, but robbed the people of Cumbria of the dedicated services of nine police officers for three years. We need not only a debate, but new legislation to streamline the shambolic system that we have inherited from 50 or 60 years ago.

John Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to the attention of the House. It is certainly disconcerting in a number of ways. I cannot promise him a full debate on that particular issue, the details of which I do not know, but I promise to bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will find opportunities to raise the matter again.

Angela Browning: Can we have a debate next week on the middle classes? I am sure that the Leader of the House will have noted that in Liberal Democrat News of 30 May, Jonathan Calder, who is a member of the party's federal policy committee, wrote an article about the Conservative policy of scrapping tuition fees. He says that it
	"has a lot to be said for it",
	but goes on to say:
	"If the Conservatives do not speak for the stupid middle classes, who do they speak for?"
	We should like to debate that rather old-fashioned concept with them.

John Reid: That was obviously written for a member of the working class, since we have come to expect the Liberals to say to the working class that the middle class is stupid and to the middle class that the working class is stupid. That is in the nature of Liberal politics. I shall do what I can, however, because I think that we should always try to make opportunities to bring class analysis into these matters.

Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the sharply rising costs of living and working in London, not only from the private sector point of view in terms of business rates and commuter fares going up, but in relation to the London weighting that is given to public servants, which is quite out of line with private sector costs and is leading to a migration of public servants out of the capital?

John Reid: As my hon. Friend will probably concede, we have done a considerable amount to assist people working in London through housing and various other mechanisms. I should have thought, given the nature of the subject, that Westminster Hall might be an appropriate venue to discuss it, because he is speaking not only about financial issues, but a range of measures that would enable people to recruit, to work and to live in London more easily than at present.

Nicholas Winterton: May I express my sadness that so much of the time at business questions is taken up by Front Benchers, given that it is a time for Back Benchers to raise issues of concern? May I therefore raise with the Leader of the House a matter that is of concern to me—namely, that he has announced for next week a carry-over motion for the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill? Does he accept that that has proved necessary because the Government failed to provide adequate time to debate that Bill on the Floor of the House and elsewhere? Will he give me an assurance that he will, as a matter of urgency, review the whole programming policy to ensure that this House has adequate time to debate important Bills?

John Reid: If I have in any way contributed towards elongating Front-Bench contributions, I apologise, although I noticed that the hon. Gentleman's eyes were drifting in a different direction when he made his comments. However, I would not want to stir up difficulties on the Opposition Benches.
	On the planning Bill, no, it is not that we have just discovered that we did not allow enough time for scrutiny. As I explained to the Front-Bench spokesman for the Liberal Democrats and to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, we intend to change some of the details of Crown immunity. There will be further time for scrutiny, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, rather than complain about it.

Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to glance at the helpful reply by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) in last night's debate on the detention of Tariq Aziz? Whatever differences we may have about Iraq, are we not united in thinking that we have to ask the Americans whether such people are to be put on trial? That cannot be left for ever. We have to be careful about victor's justice and to show that the west has higher standards than other people who do not have trials.

John Reid: We have always believed that the Iraqi leaders most responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes should be brought to justice, and that that should be done as soon as possible. There are strong arguments for allowing the Iraqis themselves to bring to justice those who have committed crimes against them. We shall therefore need to explore what kind of investigative and trial processes they can adopt. United Nations Security Council resolution 1483, which was adopted on 26 May—unanimously, I might say—affirms the need for accountability for crimes and atrocities committed by the previous Iraqi regime. It also appeals to member states to deny safe haven to those members of the previous regime who are alleged to be responsible for crimes and atrocities, and to support actions to bring them to justice. I hope that that answer brings some solace to my hon. Friend.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate next week in which we might receive an explanation from a Minister as to why there has been such a substantial change in Government attitudes to inquiries? In the first few years of the Labour Government, a number of inquiries—public and judicial—were set up to look into the activities of the previous Conservative Government. Since then, there have been no public or judicial inquiries at all into any of the actions of this Government. Why was the Prime Minister so happy to authorise inquiries into the previous Government, when he is not so happy to have inquiries into his own?

John Reid: It may speak to the comparison between our conduct and theirs.

Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) launched sure start month earlier this week. [Hon. Members: "What?] He will also be aware that sure start, which is run by dedicated staff, works in some of the poorest areas in the country and with some of the poorest and most deprived people. [Interruption.] May I ask my right hon. Friend whether we can find time for a debate on this important programme, which will bring into relief not only the transfer of best practice and value for money but a recognition of the work that the staff do in those areas?

John Reid: My hon. Friend will have noticed the mockery and scorn that greeted his references to sure start, a programme that has brought opportunities for well over a million children, some in the most deprived areas. I can assure him that, at least on this side of the House, we are committed to improving access to good quality education, affordable child care, early learning, family support and so on. We were the first Government to introduce a national child care strategy in England. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall look for every opportunity to implement—and to debate and discuss—measures that will build on that early success.

Andrew Mitchell: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the responses that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on the issue of rogue elements, in view of the historic precedents and the propensity of senior Labour Government figures to allege that there are rogue element activities in the security services in order to get themselves out of a tight spot? In this regard, does he recall the interview on rogue elements given by his predecessor, the late Lord Wilson, which is recorded in Philip Ziegler's biography? Lord Wilson said:
	"I might tell you to go to Charing Cross Road and kick a blind man standing in the corner. That blind man may tell you something, lead you somewhere."
	He also said:
	"I see myself as a big fat spider in the corner of the room. Sometimes I speak when I am asleep. You should listen."

John Reid: If I ever find myself afflicted by insomnia, I will get the hon. Gentleman to read me bedtime stories; he seems amply qualified to do so. I cannot be any plainer: I just do not understand why those on the other side of the House who supposedly support our security services do not want to attack those who are undermining them. I make no apology for attacking and criticising those who have been impugning the integrity of our intelligence services as well as of the Government. Finally, while I am always willing to be flattered by compliments, I am afraid that Prime Minister Wilson was not my predecessor; I do not think that he ever managed to reach the dizzy heights of the position of Leader of the House.

Jackie Lawrence: I wonder whether, in any spare time that he might have had this week, my right hon. Friend has noticed early-day motion 1274.
	[That this House calls on Ordnance Survey to review their decision to remove national park boundaries from the OS Explorer maps; notes that every national park authority is opposed to the proposal and that the replacement illustrations of national park boundaries on the map cover will be useless in precisely describing park borders; affirms the role of the national park authorities as a point of information for visitors and local residents; regrets that under these proposals this valuable point of information will be made less accessible; and calls on Ordnance Survey to liaise with the Association for National Parks to ensure that national park boundaries continue to feature in OS Explorer maps.]
	The motion raises the fact that Ordnance Survey intends to remove national park boundaries from its Explorer maps. If there proves to be no time to debate this matter next week, will my right hon. Friend at least ask Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take it up with Ordnance Survey, because the representatives of all the national parks of England and Wales believe that removing those boundaries from the maps will deter them from carrying out their duties?

John Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I do not normally start my response with the words, "It says here", but I am going to do so now. It says here that national park boundaries will continue to be shown on each appropriate map cover, but not on the map itself, as extensive research and consultation has indicated that the depiction caused confusion with access land boundaries. National park boundaries will, however, continue to be shown on other Ordnance Survey products, including the 1:50,000 scale OS Landranger map series, the OS Travel Map Tour series and appropriate digital map data. I hope that that gives some consolation to my hon. Friend.

Jackie Lawrence: indicated dissent.

John Reid: If not, I will try to find other opportunities to debate the matter.

John Barrett: May I tell the Leader of the House of the real shock that many of my constituents felt last week, when the closure was announced of Ethicon, a world-leading manufacturing company? Will he find time to debate in the House what can be done to help our manufacturing industry, particularly in the face of jobs going abroad? Some of these manufacturers are considering short-term moves abroad rather than the long-term loyalty of the work force and communities that have made them world leaders.

John Reid: I am sure that hon. Members will understand the shock that was felt by the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Few things are more difficult for a constituency MP than their constituents being afflicted by unemployment and huge job losses. I understand that myself, coming from an area that went through the decline of the coal industry and then the steel industry. I do not know the details of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I hope that he will agree that, in general, we have tried to compensate where there have been job losses, through taskforces and other mechanisms, and to create the right economic environment. I will certainly bring his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Hugh Bayley: Today, Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart McCrostie, the commanding officer of 2 Signal Regiment, returns from Iraq to the regimental barracks in York with his soldiers. On the eve of the regiment's going into battle, he wrote to me to say that it was his ambition to bring all his soldiers back alive. Mercifully, that is what has happened. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the regiment, and to wish 219 Squadron well, while it remains in Iraq? Will he consider whether there is some way for the House to put on record its appreciation of the bravery and professionalism of our soldiers in Iraq, and to allow us to thank them for the freedoms and human rights that they have brought to the people of Iraq?

John Reid: I wholeheartedly support every single word of my hon. Friend's contribution. I am sure that we send collectively from the House our congratulations to the commanding officer and to 2 Signal Regiment, particularly as they are returning to York, which has been a garrison town for 2,000 years, as my hon. Friend is always ready to remind us, and because they represent success. Whatever differences we have in the House over Iraq, the one view on which we should have none is that, once again, our armed forces have shown that, pound for pound, they are as good as, and probably better than, any in the world. We should be immensely proud of every single one of them.

Angela Watkinson: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for an urgent debate on the right to demonstrate? I ask this for two reasons. First, there was a Greenpeace demonstration yesterday at a building site in Marsham street, at which one demonstrator took charge of a high crane. About 50 police officers were on duty around the circumference of the block. This morning there were six police vans full of police officers on stand-by. I would be interested to know whether any of them had been deployed from the London borough of Havering, where the sighting of a police officer is a cause for great rejoicing. The second reason is the demonstrations that have been tolerated in Parliament square, which I understood to be in contravention of United Kingdom law.

John Reid: I am not aware of the first case, but I will bring it to the attention of the Home Secretary. On the second, I know that Members on both sides have expressed concern, but we in the House stand by and, indeed, represent the development of democracy as well as people's right to make their point of view known and to demonstrate. However, that always has to be balanced against the convenience and safety of all others in our democracy. That includes the House of Commons, so I will look into the hon. Lady's second point.

John Cryer: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1126, which concerns community pharmacies and the barmy Office of Fair Trading plans to deregulate pharmaceutical prescribing?
	[That this House congratulates colleagues in the Welsh and Scottish assemblies on their firm rejection of proposals to allow unlimited opening of pharmacies by large national retailers; recognises the role of the independent community pharmacist in serving vulnerable urban and rural populations; notes that a 'balanced package of measures' may not necessarily be the best way to serve the health needs of the whole community; and calls upon the Government to follow the lead taken by the Welsh and Scottish assemblies and end the uncertainty about the future which is affecting community pharmacists across the country.]
	This matter was referred to earlier at Trade and Industry questions, albeit briefly. If the OFT proposals go through, there could be a serious threat to community pharmacies and the big supermarkets will move into pharmaceutical prescribing. Can we have a debate on the issue or, if not a debate, perhaps a statement from a Health Minister?

John Reid: We are aware of the concerns held not only by my hon. Friend, but by people who have expressed similar views. Although I am not acquainted with that early-day motion, I will have a look at it. I understand that it refers to what is in effect, at this stage, something with the status of a proposal on which we are consulting. Therefore, I am sure that he will find many opportunities to make his views known in that consultation.

Gregory Barker: The Leader of the House continues to stand by his allegations that there have been leaks from rogue elements in the security services. Regardless of whatever investigations are undertaken by Select Committees of the House, will he at least tell us whether the Secret Intelligence Service takes his allegations seriously and whether any internal inquiry has been set up to look for those rogue elements? If they truly exist, that would be very serious indeed. When does he expect that internal mole hunt to report? Will he allow the publication of the conclusions reached by that report? Is SIS taking his allegations seriously at all?

John Reid: Let me ask two simple questions that might help the hon. Gentleman. Does he believe the BBC reporter who says— [Interruption.] No, he does not—fine. In that case, he does not have to believe that there is anybody in any way connected with intelligence who has briefed the BBC reporter. If, on the other hand, he believes the BBC reporter, by definition he must believe that someone has said something who is connected— [Interruption.] I do not know who that person is, as he is anonymous. We do not know where such people come from and we do not know what credit to place on this matter, but I wish that the hon. Gentleman would spend 1 per cent. of the effort that he is spending on trying to make rather trite cheap party political points in condemning anyone who is misinforming the public about the security services.

Gregory Barker: Is there an internal mole hunt?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Barker, you have asked a question and the Leader of the House is answering. It may not be of the desired quality, but none the less it is an answer. The hon. Gentleman has to be calm and quiet. That is the way it goes.

John Reid: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Leader of the House has managed to give a decent enough answer on that one.

Jim Sheridan: Can consideration be given to holding a debate in the House on the question of Government support for indigenous industries? Although many of us welcomed the decision on the construction of the aircraft carriers and the boost that it gave to shipbuilding and to sustained, long-term security for those who work in the major shipyards, a number of small, independent commercial shipyards are struggling to survive. Will my right hon. Friend put pressure on the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence, for those shipyards do not have the luxury of waiting for those orders to come through? If we lose these skills, the community will suffer and we may not get them back. Therefore, we may not be able to complete the aircraft carrier contracts.

John Reid: Without diminishing in any way what my hon. Friend says, he will accept, first, that the shipbuilding order placed by the MOD is bigger than any such order placed by any previous Government. Secondly, the DTI has been particularly active under this Government, which contrasts with the days when the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor as a man with an empty in-tray, an empty out-tray and a full ashtray. In those days, of course, the Conservative Government believed that there should be no intervention at all to help industry. I accept that challenges remain, but the Government have not only made time available, but made great efforts to assist our industry.

Pete Wishart: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the voting system for Scottish local government is a matter exclusively for the Scottish Parliament? Will he join me in condemning the campaign started by several of his colleagues from Scotland to try to reverse the Scottish Executive's decision to legislate for fair votes, including threatening to review in this House the voting system for the Scottish Parliament? Would not it be better for the whole matter of the voting system to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament to keep it away from the petty feuding and bickering that go on in the Scottish Labour party?

John Reid: Of course, what the hon. Gentleman refers to as bickering is political discussion. We have that in the Scottish Labour party, but I do not know whether they have it in the Scottish National party. If they have had it, it has not been very productive. I suspect that his deep interest in a change in the voting system results from the fact that under the current one there has been a huge decline in the SNP presence in the Scottish Parliament. However, I shall certainly bring his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

David Winnick: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what is new in out-of-control elements in the security services undermining a Labour Government? Has not that been the case since the first Labour Government came to office in the 1920s?

John Reid: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that I have complete confidence in our security services, because from top to bottom the vast majority of people in them are committed, professional, loyal and dedicated. That is why I get so angry when there appear to be one or two people who are prepared to put information out that questions the integrity of our intelligence services. I get even slightly angrier, although nothing normally surprises me about the Conservatives, when they jump on a bandwagon apparently supporting those elements who are undermining our security services.

Paul Goodman: The Leader of the House has twice been asked whether he will approach the Intelligence and Security Committee to give evidence on the serious allegations that he has made. Will he now take the opportunity to say whether he is willing to do so? If he is not, will he perhaps give the House an opportunity to debate the matter further?

John Reid: You said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I may not have been giving an answer of the necessary quality. [Interruption.] We are very open-minded in the House. There is another suggestion, of course, and an alternative—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should say that that was the opinion of an hon. Gentleman. I am quite happy with the quality so far.

John Reid: Thank you. In which case, I say that there is an alternative solution: the intellectual capacity of those on the other side of the House in grasping even the most simple proposition is somewhat lacking. I do not intend to repeat the answer that I have already given four times, which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) might understand if he reads it from the transcript with the aid of some of his fellow storytellers.

Joan Ruddock: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the situation in Burma? We know that the leader of the National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been not only detained, but injured. We also know that the Red Cross has been allowed no access to her and that her deputy, U Tin Oo, was last seen being beaten up and has now disappeared completely. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate in the House so that we can see what we and the international community can do to try to tackle the brutal regime in Burma?

John Reid: Yes indeed. I hope that the whole House shares my concern and that of my hon. Friend. We are deeply concerned about the latest developments in Burma, and we have firmly called on the Burmese to release Suu and her National League colleagues immediately and to reopen the NLD offices and the universities in Burma. We are in discussions with our European Union and international partners on what further steps we will take if the regime does not provide immediate satisfactory responses on those matters.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the Leader of the House agree that the quality of parliamentary business could be greatly improved if we did not have to endure half an hour of questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland once a month? When he next speaks to the Prime Minister, might he perhaps suggest that the rumoured forthcoming reshuffle would present an excellent opportunity to get rid of a Department that has clearly outlived its usefulness and to replace it with a Department that would deal with all the Administrations in the devolved regions?

John Reid: Even while wearing my hat as a member of the United Kingdom Government with United Kingdom-wide responsibilities, I am staggered by the hon. Gentleman's attempt to diminish the importance of Scotland. I would have expected him to welcome the opportunity, for just 30 minutes each month, to discuss the responsibilities of this House, which have an immediate and important impact on Scotland. I am thinking of trade policy, macro-economic policy, telecommunications, the oil industry, social security and benefits—quite apart from foreign affairs and defence, which are of huge interest to the people of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should think again before talking down Scotland.

John Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the restrictive practices that are being applied by NTL and Telewest in relation to the new directory inquiries system? They are not permitting any of their 5 million customers to contact the other 82 companies that are allowed to provide services and have paid a lot of money to obtain their numbers. Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange a debate, or get in touch with the Department of Trade and Industry and in particular Oftel, which has refused to do anything on the ground that five million people is too small a number to be bothered with? Perhaps one of the Opposition parties would consider requesting a debate next week.

John Reid: I was not aware of that, and I thank my hon. Friend for telling me about it. If what he says is accurate, it is extremely disturbing, and at the very least it is something that I should bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I will do that. Orders of the Day

European Union (Accessions) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]
	 — 
	Clause 1
	 — 
	Accession Treaty

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Denis MacShane: Clause 1 is central to the Bill. In crude terms, it will enable us to implement the accession treaty in United Kingdom law, paving the way for UK ratification later in the year. It should be recognisable to all who are familiar with past accession Bills. I have just had a very enjoyable lunchtime meeting with the Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic, who hopes very much that he will be able to go home tonight with news that the House of Commons has sent the people of his country a positive message by adopting clause 1—and, indeed, the Bill as a whole.
	Subsection 1 amends the definitions of "the Treaties" and "the Community Treaties" in the European Communities Act 1972. In broad terms that grants automatic effect to directly applicable treaty provisions, and allows designated Ministers to make regulations amending existing UK legislation to the extent that that may be necessary for the implementation of the treaty.
	It is difficult to speak about this part of the Bill without rehearsing some of the principles discussed on Second Reading. I shall be brief, because I believe that there is a broad consensus on the principles of accession. We have separately placed the key facts in the public domain in the form of the explanatory memorandum on the treaty, and the explanatory notes and regulatory impact assessment relating to the Bill.
	The enlargement for which the Bill provides means that the cold war will finally be laid to rest. After decades of suspicion, disunity and enmity, the continent of Europe will be united, locking in peace, security and prosperity. Just over a decade ago, six of the 10 states that will join us in the EU next year did not exist, and one of the 10 was at war. Now all the accession states, bar Cyprus and Malta, are or are due to become NATO members. Security and stability have increased markedly within and between the accession states, and across Europe as a whole.
	Since the start of the association process 10 years ago, the gross domestic product of candidates from the former communist bloc has grown by 40 per cent. The standard of living in central Europe has improved dramatically. For example, the average salary in Slovenia has increased by 62 per cent. in the last 10 years. Central European economies have rapidly integrated with western European and world markets. When I visited Poland last week, I noted the remarkable change that is taking place almost year on year, with new wealth, new housing, new cars, new industry and new business surging forward.
	The EU is the accession countries' main trading partner. As a bloc, the 10 new member states constitute the EU's largest trading partner after the United States.
	The final package for the new member states is generous and fair, but it is also below the overall budget ceilings for enlargement set by the European Council in Berlin in 1999. Although some Members have complained that the deal is not generous enough, it is in line with the new member states' capacity to absorb funds.
	Accession has helped and is helping the new members to address issues ranging from the protection of minority rights to the safety of nuclear power stations and to hygiene in dairies. They have had to reform and significantly strengthen their Administrations and their court and legal systems. All that benefits the citizens of those countries, and anyone who travels or works in them.

John Bercow: Given that the provision for regulations—the need for which is not of itself in dispute—comprises the vast bulk of clause 2 of a three-clause Bill, can the Minister enlighten us on whether the Government are prepared to consider subjecting such regulations to the affirmative procedure? That would afford the opportunity of a full debate on the content thereof on the Floor of the House.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question relates to clause 2; we are debating clause 1.

Denis MacShane: Profound changes in the business environment have also taken place—for example, the creation of food standards agencies, telecoms regulators, labour inspectorates and insurance market supervisors. Enlargement is improving environmental standards across the continent as well as health and safety standards. That applies to food safety and the quality of food exports to the United Kingdom, consumer protection and employment practice. Enlargement has also improved human rights. The new member states have had to align their human rights law and practices with EU standards, and they are required to have taken on board by the point of accession the Community's acquis prohibiting racial and other forms of discrimination.

Bob Spink: The Minister mentioned trade and exports. How will the accession of the whole island of Cyprus affect exports from the north of the island, and what changes will there be to visa requirements?

Denis MacShane: The status of the northern part will remain the same. We are optimistic that before accession on 1 May next year a united Cyprus, along the lines of the Kofi Annan plan, will enter the EU. I take great heart, as I believe do all Members, from the remarkable sight of the people of Cyprus voting with their feet against some of the most reactionary political advice that they have received in recent years.
	The prospect of enlargement is helping us to boost co-operation between present and future member states in tackling organised crime, drug trafficking and people smuggling. Acceding countries are bringing their police forces up to EU standards, and will participate in EU anti-crime institutions.
	There is certainly more for the new member states to do. The Commission continues to monitor their implementation of their negotiating commitments. We welcome that monitoring, which serves as both an encouragement to the new members to continue their efforts and an assurance to the existing member states.
	The Commission will issue a comprehensive report in November this year. If necessary, that will advise on the potential use of the safeguards in the treaty for issues such as the functioning of the single market and mutual recognition of civil and criminal law. However, neither monitoring nor safeguards will affect accession itself. Subject to ratification by the 25 states, the treaty will enter into effect for all 25 states on 1 May next year. The signs so far are promising. Referendums have been won in Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia. We have high hopes for Poland this weekend, for the Czech Republic a little later and for Latvia and Estonia in September. The message is clear and loud: saying yes to Europe is popular among those who know the value of freedom and who liberated themselves from communism.
	Subsection (2) approves, for the purpose of section 12 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, the provisions of the accession treaty in so far as they relate to the powers of the European Parliament. As in previous accession Bills, the inclusion of that provision is a precautionary measure to put beyond doubt Parliament's approval of those parts of the treaty that deal with the powers of the European Parliament.
	The accession treaty does not create new powers for the Parliament, but it increases the field of application of the existing powers of the Parliament. Article 11 of the Act of Accession provides for an allocation of MEPs to all 25 member states for the electoral term beginning in June 2004. The figures allocated to each member state were foreshadowed in the relevant protocol and declaration of the Nice treaty, but have been adjusted to take into account the fact that neither Bulgaria nor Romania will accede next year. Minor adjustments were also made to reflect more accurately the sizes of the Hungarian and Czech populations.
	Like other existing member states, the UK will see a reduction in the number of its MEPs in the new Parliament; it will decrease from 87 to 78. That is a fair price to pay for an efficient enlargement. Those changes will be implemented in the UK through the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003, which has recently become law.

Richard Spring: I thank the Minister for setting out what is in clause 1. Of course, we endorse both the sentiments behind it and what is in the clause, but I remind the Committee of the Copenhagen criteria that were set 10 years ago for the accession process. The criteria demanded that, before a state could be considered for membership of the EU, it must possess the following attributes. An applicant must have stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities. An applicant must have a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competitive pressures in the single market of the EU. An applicant must be able to take on the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union. Lastly, the applicant must create the conditions for its integration through the adjustment of its administrative structures, so that European Community legislation transposed into national legislation can be implemented effectively through appropriate administrative and judicial structures.
	I agree with the Minister. He said that the moves have had in many instances a salutary effect on internal reforms in the accession countries. Equally, it has been a very heavy load for some of those countries, with the 85,000 pages of the acquis communautaire. I pay tribute to the officials in the accession countries for their hard work and dedication to bringing this historic moment about.
	Sir Alan, I hope that you will allow me the indulgence of saying a few words about each of the accession countries, because this is an extremely important moment. Each of the accession countries has something special to offer our European partners. In Britain, perhaps too little is known about them but I hope that, as a result of what we are doing today and the accession process, many millions of Britons will take the opportunity to experience the beauties of central and eastern Europe and to get to know about the political systems there.
	Malta is well known to us. It is a cherished and valuable member of the Commonwealth. We remember it for its bravery in the second world war and it is a considerable economic success story. The Baltic states have their own rich heritage. Estonia is famous for its beauty. What has characterised Estonia above all is its clear commitment to liberal economics. It has reduced taxation and is having to reimpose tariffs and subsidies—[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) finds this so amusing. I am trying to record for the purposes of the Committee how pleased we are, and to pay tribute to what those countries have done.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Spring: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was being extremely discourteous.
	The result has been excellent economic growth. Latvia has one of the great cities, Riga. It celebrated its 800th anniversary last year. I hope that it will celebrate its 801st in the EU. Lithuania has a rich history and we welcome it into the EU. It has long fought for independence. It has a unique culture and it will act as a gateway and bridge to Russia, as will all the Baltic states.
	Perhaps more than any other country, Poland suffered grievously in the previous century. It is now free from communist subjugation. The fall of the Berlin wall opened up the whole process; in effect, it began to crumble in Gdansk. I was lucky enough to visit Poland last year. Again, Poland will play an important part in the European Union and help us to open links with countries such as Belarus and Ukraine.
	The Czech Republic lies at the heart of Europe. Prague is perhaps the most famous European city between Vienna and St. Petersburg. Again, it has a rich history. The country stood up for freedom strongly during the communist era. Similarly, the British people will, I am sure, be more aware of Slovakia. We pay tribute to what has happened there and to the harmonious relationships that have been built between the Slovakian majority and Hungarian minority.
	Hungary's national spirit was fiercest in the resistance against communist tyranny. It now has a sturdy democracy and a growing economy. Budapest is recognised now as one of the great cities of Europe.
	Slovenia is an exemplar in a troubled part of the world. Alone of the former Yugoslav republics, it has avoided the horrors of civil strife. [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I do not want sedentary discussion going on and disturbing the debate. Nothing is out of order. If anything occurs that is out of order, I will rule it so. The clause deals with the accession of certain countries to the European Union. It seems therefore perfectly in order that some discussion should take place about those countries. However, I expressed the hope to some hon. Members before the debate that it should not be a slavish repetition of the Second Reading debate.

Richard Spring: Thank you, Sir Alan.
	On Cyprus, the whole Committee will recognise that this is something of a bittersweet moment because the special representative of the United Kingdom, Lord Hannay, has just been withdrawn, according to this morning's newspapers. I salute his efforts and those of Kofi Annan, but Cyprus is not joining as a united country. We regret the collapse of the negotiations process and what happened at the end of March. Our position has always been clear: we support a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal structure for a united island.I hope that, despite that terrific setback—as the Minister said, we saw a great outpouring and a total lack of rancour between the two groups on the island when they were allowed to meet in a limited way—it will be possible for the process to move on. The Republic of Cyprus has prospered, but that has not been true of Turkish north Cyprus. It is important that some arrangement be entered into that will result in prosperity for all parts of the island.

Martin Smyth: In paying tribute to the emerging countries, does the hon. Gentleman agree that they prize their independence, and that it is important that, as we go forward, we do not become an embattled Europe but bear in mind the whole world when talking about free trade?

Richard Spring: I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. Free trade and flexibility must be key elements in making the European Union enduring and successful in the years to come.
	I greatly applaud the measures taken by the Republic of Cyprus in respect of Turkish north Cyprus. It made several suggestions on 30 April, including greater freedom of movement of goods for citizens living in the Turkish part of the island, and of persons and vehicles. It also made suggestions concerning employment rights, medical care and participation in international events. I hope that, despite the setback, there can be a coming together.

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman referred to Lord Hannay's withdrawal, but his mandate has simply come to its natural end. He is a superb servant of the Foreign Office and the Crown. He is well into his retirement and has given immense energy and time to trying to bring the people of Cyprus together. I simply want to place on the record, in front of the Committee of the whole House, all our thanks for the magnificent work that he has done. I hope that the spirit of Hannay will allow a united Cyprus to join the EU before next May.

Richard Spring: I am very grateful to the Minister for those comments—obviously, what I read in one of this morning's newspapers was not entirely accurate. However, the fact is that Lord Hannay's tenure is coming to an end, and I am very happy to endorse the Minister's comments. Indeed, I did say that Lord Hannay has played an important part—[Interruption.] Perhaps the newspaper report originated from a rogue element—I do not know. I salute Lord Hannay and all those who have tried to bring about reconciliation. Cyprus is an island with which we have strong historical links, and there are Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities here in the United Kingdom that enrich our own national life. It seems tragic that at this moment in history, as the 10 accession countries are joining, one of them should not be united.
	I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, for allowing me to make those comments about the accession countries, which have different histories, cultures and traditions. We very much welcome their joining the European Union, and that applies in the context of clause 1 of the Bill.

Keith Vaz: I shall speak very briefly, and I do not of course wish to repeat everything that was said on Second Reading. I want to begin by congratulating the Minister for Europe on all the work that he and his Department have done in respect of enlargement. He has been assiduous in visiting all the enlargement countries. Indeed, he has just come back from Poland, and his visit perhaps overshadowed even that of our own Prime Minister and President Bush, so well did the Polish receive him. We have reunited the continent of Europe, and reunited the Minister for Europe with members of his own family in Poland.
	I am very pleased that the Minister has launched a campaign in this country—I understand that it is supported by the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats—to inform people about the enlargement process. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) is absolutely right: people do not know enough about the enlargement process, and the work that the Minister is doing in taking the message to the people of this country will help us enormously.
	It is always interesting to listen to the hon. Member for West Suffolk. I am grateful to him for repeating the names of all the applicant countries. Of course, the Conservatives' position has changed. At the time of the Nice treaty, they were in favour—as was the hon. Gentleman—of a referendum on Nice, thereby seeking to block the enlargement process. I was therefore delighted that, when the Conservative party called for a Division when this matter was debated on Second Reading, they voted in favour of enlargement; indeed, nobody voted against it. That unanimity is a bit late in coming, but we welcome such support.
	All that we did not hear from the hon. Gentleman was an analysis of the voting during the Eurovision song contest, but perhaps that will come when he discusses clause 2. However, it is important that we pay tribute to these countries, which have worked extremely hard. The timetable set by our Prime Minister and others is being realised—perhaps sooner than many of us anticipated.
	I want to raise one final point with the Minister, relating to his letter to me of 4 June. Page 2, paragraph 3 of that letter deals with early-warning letters sent by the Commission to the applicant countries—an issue that he mentioned in his speech. In considering this part of the Bill on Second Reading, I raised with the Minister the issue of countries such as Poland, which have received early-warning letters. I sought an assurance from him that their receiving such letters did not bar them from acceding to the European Union in May 2004, and he wrote to me giving that assurance. However, I am worried about paragraph 3 of that letter, in which he says that if the early-warning letters and the report that will be published in November show that some countries have not reached the necessary standard, those countries, if no safeguards are already agreed in the negotiations, will face the prospect of infraction proceedings as soon as they join.
	That would be a terrible end to a very long process. Many of these countries have worked hard for a number of years in order to join the European Union. To say to those countries that, once they join, infraction proceedings may be started against them if there are no safeguards, is surely the wrong message to send. At this stage, we should be making sure that they meet the established criteria. I want the Government to do as much as they possibly can to help the applicant countries to achieve the benchmarks set by the Commission. We should not leave that task to the Commission. As the Minister has said, we have good relations with many of these countries. Why do we not give them whatever support they need to make sure that they resolve the problems described in the early-warning letters?
	The prospect of infraction proceedings against those countries is awful, and I hope that we can ensure that we meet the criteria in a proper and effective way. If that means giving them more resources, we should do so. I know that the Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have launched various action plans with the applicant countries, but if they need more support perhaps we should arrange the secondment of some of our civil servants. Indeed, we should help them in any way that we can, because there are still several months to go before they sign the treaty and accede.
	I support the Bill and I hope that the clause will go through unamended.

Lembit �pik: I want to speak briefly about the importance of clause 1 to the Baltic states and specifically to Estonia, for obvious reasons. During the collapse of the Soviet Union, The Irish Times ran a cartoon depicting Estonia as a greenhouse filled with burly Russians chucking the local population around. The caption said simply, People who live in glasnost shouldn't throw Estonians. [Hon. Members: Oh.] Thank you very much. Estonia has come a long way since then. It had much to fear from the USSR, but I would suggest that the United Kingdom has nothing to fear from the implications of clause 1 and the benefits that it will bring to Estonia and the other Baltic states.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) correctly highlighted the importance of the four Copenhagen criteria, and I am glad to say that Estonia is certainly equipped to achieve the requirements of those criteria. Indeed, it has a great deal of common ground with the existing full members of the European Union, and particularly with the United Kingdom. Common points include a concern about the harmonisation of tax policy, an eagerness for reform of the common agricultural policy, a concern about over-centralisation of decision making and a healthy support for the tenets of competitive markets. Indeed, Estonia sees itself as a worthy competitor in a positive way, and clause 2 will have some very important benefits with regard to the movement of workers.
	Estonia very much supports the belief that NATO must continue. In terms of many other policy areas, clause 1 simply enables countries that already have a great deal of cultural and spiritual commonality with existing members of the European Union to play their full part. I am grateful for the fact that the UK showed such generosity to my parents by allowing them to come here as refugees during the second world war. I hope that the implementation of clause 1 will give Estonia the opportunity to repay the gratitude that it feels for the help given to so many refugees.

Keith Vaz: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the most famous person of Estonian origin in the country lives in my constituency and happens to be his mother. What more does he think that we can do to encourage the communities that are settled here permanently to get involved in the enlargement process?

Lembit �pik: I shall not go too far into that, because we risk rerunning Second Reading. However, I agree that there may not be sufficient awareness of what clause 1 and the Bill as a whole will achieve. If clause 1 is agreed, and I suspect that it will be, we will have the opportunity to inform members of communities from the 10 countries of the potential benefits. That could also prove beneficial in respect of whatever referendum the Government decide to introduce.

Alan Whitehead: In recording the importance to the Baltic states of the accession arrangementsand, indeed, the future role of the Baltic states in Europewhat does the hon. Gentleman think about the important discussions that have taken place, particularly in Lithuania, about Kaliningrad? What will be the implications for good working and trading relationships, particularly through Lithuania and Poland, with Russia? The Baltic states have done good work on behalf of the whole EU in making such arrangements possible, thus avoiding what could have been a flashpoint and point of contention in future years.

Lembit �pik: I did not intend to cover the point, but it is true, as the hon. Member for West Suffolk said, that clause 1 is beneficial not just to the Baltic states, but, in providing an active and direct economic and cultural interface with Russia to the European Union. That will allow for greater political stability and confidence, and a reduction of the danger of military problems breaking out in that area. I shall leave it at that for now.
	To conclude, as the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said, my mother lives in his constituency. As a Liberal Democrat, I sometimes feel that she is too keen a supporter of his constituency work. I hope that the clause will be passed, and I remind hon. Members that the Baltic states have a long memory and that they are truly grateful for the support of the UK in the past. As I said, clause 1 will provide an opportunity to repay that gratitude, and I hope that the country will shift from being good neighbour of the European Union to a full member of the team.

David Wilshire: Because I want to raise some issues that might prompt Government Members to wonder where I am coming from, I should like to clear the decks before I go on to the detail, and make a couple of points absolutely clear. First, I support enlargement. I have no problem with it, and I never have had a problem with it. I also support the Bill in principle and have no difficulty with it; as Labour Members can imagine, there are a few buts to follow in a moment.
	In the past, Conservative Members might have said that there should be a referendum on enlargement. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said that he was glad that we had moved on from that, because it meant that we were against enlargement. However, what he needs to understand is that championing the idea of consulting the people of this country does not necessarily mean that we are against something. It simply means that we want to invite the people to have their say. I make no apologies for wanting referendums and I do not accept the view that any party that supports a referendum is committing itself to campaigning for a yes or a no, or even to campaign at all. It means that an issue is so important that the people's views matter. If the hon. Member for Leicester, East does not want to bother to listen to his constituents, some of us will ensure that they understand that he could not care less about them, but does what he believes is in his and his party's best interest. I feel sorry for him if that is what he thinks.
	Secondly, I want to make it clear from the outset that I am not in favour of leaving the European Union. If people think otherwise, they have got it wrong; I am still in favour of belonging to what I voted yes to in the referendum held in the past. I have no wish to leave it, only to change what we have now, which is a wholly different issue and way beyond the scope of clause 1. I make that point clear because the Minister for Europe made the usual assumption that it is a matter for rejoicing when people vote in favour of the European Union in referendums. He rejoiced in the fact that people in the applicant countries voted yes to Europe. I wish the Minister would stop claiming that the European Union equals Europe. The atlas on my bookshelf at home does not have a hole torn out where Switzerland is and does not end on the western boundaries of Sweden. Europe is not the European Union and the claim that anything that happens in favour of the enlargement of the EU has something to do with Europe is simply misleading.
	In his opening remarks, the Minister also rejoiced

Denis MacShane: If it would help the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to say that I rejoiced in the fact that the countries voted yes to Europe, minus Switzerland and Norway.

David Wilshire: It is not as simple as that, but we will not go down that road, because I suspect that you would rule me out of order, Sir Alan.
	The Minister said that huge numbers of people were enthusiastic about joining the European Union. It is tempting to point out the size of the majorities in favour in the referendums, and it is even more tellingand helps to put the debate into perspectiveto examine the turnout. If we then deduct from the turnout the numbers who voted no, things do not look so rosy for the Minister. In Malta 53 per cent. of the electorate voted, in Slovenia 60 per cent.perhaps a good showing. In Lithuania 63 per cent. votedeven better. In Slovakia only 52 per cent. managed to voteonly 2 per cent. more than was required to make it a valid referendumand in Hungary only 45 per cent. voted. We should therefore temper any claims about the great enthusiasm for joining the European Union. I am glad that the people voted and I am pleased about the referendum results, but we should not get carried away about what it all means.

John Bercow: The only danger in my hon. Friend's observations so far is that he seriously understates his case. I share his enthusiasm for public consultation, but does he agree that clause 1 should be the catalyst for the development of an outward-looking, dynamic association of self-governing nation states, which should provide an alternative to what has all too often in recent times seemed to the people of this country a narrow, inward-looking protectionist club?

David Wilshire: If you would allow me, Sir Alan, to have a debate of that sort this afternoon, I would be only too pleased to respond to my hon. Friend, but I suspect that you would not. I hope that it is in order to repeat what I said at the outsetthat I support enlargement. I do so for exactly the same reasons as my hon. Friend. I have high hopes that enlargement will turn the EU outward and result in a more relaxed grouping of sovereign states, rather than what it is now.

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend has fallen into the tender trap once more, by expressing a view that we heard many times on Second Reading. He gave voice to what is on his wish list, so let me tell him that what he espouses is not on offer. If he believes otherwise, can he tell me in which treaty it is mentioned?

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend is right, but that does not undermine my point. It is why I suggested that any further comments would be out of order, but the issues must be addressed. She is right, however, to say that the clause and the Bill do not include the options that I referred to. I have already tried your patience long enough, Sir Alan, so I will move on.
	I ask the Minister to comment on several issues arising from clause 1. Clause 1(1) will alter the European Communities Act 1972, and that is what we are being asked to approve. That must raise the question of whether the change is sufficiently important for a referendum to be held on it. The Minister did not say whether the Government consider it a substantial change. We have been told that other matters are merely a question of tidying up. Is this change mere tidying up? I would have thought that the addition of 10 more states is stretching the meaning of the phrase somewhat. If this is a substantial change, as the whole Committee seems to agree, perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he gave any thought to consulting the British people. If so, what conclusions did he reach?
	The changes go beyond tidying up, and the questions that arise, many of which are addressed by the Convention, flow directly from enlargement. If enlargement is not tidying up, the issues that arise from it cannot be tidying up. Therefore, the argument against a referendum, on this or anything else, must collapse, according to the Minister's own argument. I would be grateful for his views on the holding of a referendum, because we will have to return to the issue in due course.

John Bercow: Ministers are always ready and able to shift the goalposts. Just as they can argue against a referendum on the so-called tidying-up grounds deployed by the Secretary of State for Wales, they are also capable of believing that issues are too important to subject to a referendum, for fear that the public might deliver the wrong verdict.

The Chairman: Order. This is a debate not about a referendum, but about clause 1 stand part.

David Wilshire: I thought that you might intervene shortly, Sir Alan, and I accept what you say. I have made my point, and my hon. Friend underlined it.
	Clause 1(1) will alter the treaty to take account of the joining of the countries that it mentions. Can the Minister tell us what the effect on the Bill would be if one of the 10 countries had a referendum that said no, and therefore did not join? We would have an Act of Parliament that altered a treaty to allow the accession of a country that would not in fact join. Would that make the entire procedure null and void? I note that clause 2(4)I shall not debate the point now, Sir Alanmakes provision for what happens if one of the countries does not join. Why will we be told in that later debate that it is necessary to take precautions against a no vote in somebody else's referendum? If that is necessary in clause 2, why is it not necessary to have some sort of get-out provision in clause 1?
	If the Minister thinks that an amendment could usefully be tabled in the other place to reflect that point, he might like to consider the European Communities Act section 1(3), which contains reference to the accession of Norway and makes arrangements for that country to become a member of the European Union. I know that he has a precedent to say that such provision is not necessary, but it appears to be necessary in clause 2. Can the Minister clear the muddle up, and what will he do about the Norwegian reference?

Bob Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware of tension about these matters in some countries such as the Czech Republic? Some politicians and people in that country are deeply fearful about the impact of the common agricultural policy on them, and we may well see a negative vote.

David Wilshire: That is another avenue that I would like to explore, but I fear that I would be out of order. My hon. Friend gives an example of a country that may provoke the very problem about which I am attempting to probe the Minister.

Keith Vaz: I am a little confused, because the hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was in favour of enlargement. He has raised several important points, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer them, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should delay the enlargement process until all those points have been addressed and all the referendums in the application countries are completed?

David Wilshire: Absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening. I am tempted to repeat it all in case he could manage to grasp it the second time round. For his benefit, I shall try to make it as simple as possible. All I want is an assurance from the Minister that the wording is not defective, because I do not want enlargement to be held up. I want to be assured that if we leave clause 1 as it is, it will not wreck the whole process. That is the exact opposite of what the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he claims to see some ulterior motive in the points that I am making, he is wrong. I am in favour of enlargement and I am happy to vote for the Bill, but I would like an assurance on that point.

Denis MacShane: In the event that one or more of the acceding states fails to ratify on time, the Council is required to decide on immediate indispensable adjustments to key provisions of the treaty. There is an exhaustive list of those provisions that would need to be adjusted. I could give the Committee more detail, but the issue is covered. The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point, but the Bill is in line with previous accession treaties.

David Wilshire: I thought that that was what the Minister would say. If such provision is not necessary in clause 1, I hope that he will have a convincing argument as to why it is necessary to make reference in clause 2when we reach itto what will happen if one or more countries do fail to join. This is confusing, because he has now told us that part of clause 2 is not necessary. Perhaps he will wish to table an amendment to that effect.
	The Minister rightly points out that there are provisions to cover what needs to be renegotiated in the event of the failure of a country to accede, but he has not clarified the standing of the Billor the subsequent Actin such a case. We have had the answer about the effect that it would have on clause 1, but what would happen if a country that said no then entered into further negotiations on the specific points that had upset its voters, and arrived at a different solution that meant that it would join on different terms? Would the Government have to come back with another Bill, or is the wording of the Bill sufficient to allow entry following renegotiation of the terms? That is a serious point, because we should have the chance to consider any new conditions negotiated with an entrant state. Or are we saying that all 10 applicant countries can join on whatever terms are negotiated?
	I am sorry that the Minister finds this tedious. He sighs, but we must clarify these matters. I am not a great believer in tramping through Lobbies to suit him, or anyone else, just because that would be expedient or because, at 2.19 pm, the Minister wants to get home. We are here to scrutinise legislation.

Denis MacShane: The Bill uses language identical to that in the three preceding accession Acts. Clause 2(4) states:
	Regulations under this section do not have effect so as to apply an enactment in relation to a national of a relevant acceding State which has not ratified the treaty mentioned.
	The hon. Gentleman is making a series of hypothetical points, as he is entitled to. If a nation decided not to join the EU on the terms that have been agreed, it would have to make new proposals and see whether they were acceptable, then negotiate its position and have another referendum. In due course, a separate Bill for that country would have to be brought before the House. That is what the Bill provides for if, between now and next May, one of the 10 countries decides not to join the EU. The language used covers such a refusal.

David Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. We now know where we stand with regard to renegotiation by applicant states.
	The Republic of Cyprus has been touched on already, and two issues arise from that, about which the Committee must be clear. The first is the situation in northern Cyprus, which is covered by protocol 10. When I looked at the paperwork relating to the Bill, I assumed that I would find details about travel across the green line, and indeed, those details appear in protocol 10.
	Unfortunately, the protocol says merely that the matter will be left to the Commission to sort out once Cyprus's accession has been agreed. Is that sensible, given the history of the green line? We all hope that Cyprus will be united by May next year, but I worry that the protocol could increase tension rather than decrease it, because no one knows what it means.

Denis MacShane: For the benefit of the Committee, I can report that the Commission has presented today, in the form of a communication to the Council, its proposals for dealing with some of the matters arising if there is no settlement in Cyprus before May next year. The communication includes proposals on trade and aid, for example. On trade, the Turkish Chamber of Commerce would become a customs authority under the authority of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, so that trade with the north could recommence. On aid, the proposal is that Euro13 millionthe technical term for million euro is now, I understand, the ghastly meuroof unspent budget will be spent in the form of 9 meuros on economic development and infrastructure, and 3 meuros on an information campaign covering EU issues. We fully support the proposals.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) asked about access and visas. Clearly, all holders of a Cypriot passport can travel to the EU and will be full citizens of the EU after 1 May, with normal visa-free access. People with Turkish passports will have to apply for visas, where appropriate, in the normal way. An increasing number of Cypriots from all communities are seeking the full Cypriot passport precisely so that they can get the travel rights that allow them to move freely about Europe.

David Wilshire: I am grateful for that helpful intervention, to which I shall make a couple of responses. First, I thought for a moment that the Minister was saying that the euro was ghastly. I would have agreed with him about that. I half hope that Hansard will have heard it the same way, but I think that he meant that the word meuro was ghastly.

John Bercow: I am not clear about the unit of denomination being used. It would be helpful to know about it, for the purposes of clarifying the clause.

David Wilshire: I am prepared to guess that I heard the word meuro, which means millions of those ghastly awful things that I hope are never inflicted on this country. If the Minister wanted to join me in that sentiment, I should be delighted to give way to him.
	The Minister referred to a document that he received today. I do not accuse him of discourtesy, as I might have been able to find the document in the Vote Office or the Library. However, we are being asked to legislate in respect of protocol 10 and I at least would be grateful to have a sight of that document. I hope that it may be possible for the Minister to arrange for someone to use a photocopier, as it would be helpful for members of the Committee to see exactly what is being proposed as an alternative to sorting out the green line problem after Cyprus has joined the EU. I am glad that the Minister has been able to tell us that such proposals now exist. All I want is to be able to decide whether they are adequate. It would be a huge help if he could make them available before the end of the debatebut I mean no criticism of him for not doing so beforehand.

Bob Spink: People in the north of Cyprus who do not have a full Cypriot passport, or who choose not to apply for one, will not enjoy the right of free movement in Europe without visas that others enjoy. Will my hon. Friend reflect on the anomaly thus caused, and perhaps encourage the Government to seek a solution?

David Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I shall not pursue beyond hoping that the Minister will say something about visas when he responds to the debate. My hon. Friend has raised the matter before in an intervention, and clarification from the Minister would be helpful.
	I hope, too, that the Minister will say whether he or Home Office Ministers have had any discussions with the Greek authorities on the matter. In the past, those authorities have had a nasty habit of denying British people access to Greece if they find a northern Cyprus stamp in their passports. Bearing it in mind that Greece is now an EU member, that seems a bit high-handed and unreasonable. I hope that the Minister will assure the Committee that that will stop when Cyprus joins the EU.
	Another problem with the Republic of Cyprus that I hope that the Minister will clarify has to do with protocol 13, which deals with the sovereign base areas. It strikes me as weird that sovereign base areas should be situated outside the EU. Why do the Government think that that is a good idea? The only reason that I can find for that is that the Government consider that the arguments that applied when Britain negotiated EU entry still applythat is, that when we joined, the sovereign bases did not join with us.
	That may be a very good reason, but I hope that the Minister will say why the Committee is being asked to agree to clause 1, which in effect provides that the sovereign base areas of Cyprus remain outside the EU. However, I have discoveredsurprise, surprisethat the benefits of the common agricultural policy will still apply to those areas, even though they are not in the EU. That is an example of having one's cake and eating it too. The sovereign base areas will have all the benefits of not being in the EUif there are any, perhaps the Minister will tell usbut they will still get the money. That sounds weirdbut perhaps I am being too suspicious and the Minister will be able to set my mind at rest.
	May I turn to subsection (2)? My understanding of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 is that it requires any increase in the powers of the European Parliament to be referred to the House for approval, so I assumed that, for the purposes of section 12 of the 2002 Act, the House was being asked to increase the powers of the European Parliament. Perhaps I have not read the Bill or its explanatory notes correctly, or perhaps I have not correctly understood the Library briefings, but search as I may, I can find no increase in the powers of the European Parliament. Either the subsection is unnecessary or there is some increase in those powers that has not been explained, so will the Minister tell us which it is? If there are to be no increases, I hope that he will remove that subsection. If there are to be increases, we need to know about them so that we can decide whether we are prepared to give the European Parliament more powers.
	I think that I shall receive the answer that the provision merely alters the number of member states, but that does not seem to alter the power of an individual member or of all the members collectively. That is not an increase in power, but merely an administrative change, which is an entirely different matter. Could the Minister help us out on that point?
	The Minister needs to comment on several institutional issues to which the clause gives rise. Article 2 of the treaty refers to an increase in the size of the European Parliament, and we have considered separate legislation to deal with that. Article 58 makes provision for nine more languages, so we shall have 20 languages. If we vote for the measure and add another nine languages, how much extra will the British taxpayer have to pay for that tower of Babel? The permutation of 20 languages each being translated into 19 others beggars belief. If we support the measure, what are we going to do about that?
	Article 45 refers to the Commission increasing from 10 members to 25 members. We are being asked to agree to that, but the Government are already locked into discussions on another treaty that would alter that membership of 25. We shall be agreeing to something that the Government do not really want to happen. Article 12 refers to qualified majority votingin respect of numbers, not the area over which it will be appliedyet the Government are already locked into discussions on extending the scope of qualified majority voting.
	If the Government are asking us to agree to that parcel of changes, which are certainly not tidying up but substantial, yet they are already locked into negotiations to try to sort out some of the absurdities to which I have referred, will the Minister indicate that he will give the British public an opportunity to express their view about

The Chairman: Order. I have already ruled on the referendum point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not abuse my ruling.

David Wilshire: I apologise, Sir Alan. I shall move on to article 3, which is about the Schengen agreement. I am seriously worriedas, I suspect, are many of my colleaguesabout the implications for immigration and asylum seeking of moving the external border of the European Union eastwards. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance, as I notice that when the applicant states join they will have some latitude in applying the Schengen acquis. I want to vote with the Minister on the clause, but to persuade me to do so, he must reassure us that we will not be opening a loopholea weakness in the external borders of the EUby agreeing to only partial implementation of the acquis in the early stages.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend refers to his anxieties about Schengen. I ordinarily keep a beady eye on the matters that the Committee is being invited to scrutinise, so can he tell us whether, if we vote for clause 1, we should be conscious that subsection (2) thereof provides for a calculated, as opposed to an inadvertent, increase in claims on public expenditure? I had understood no such thing and should be disturbed to discover that it was so, but I need to know.

David Wilshire: rose

The Chairman: Order. Any further explanation of that point will take us well over the line as to whether the remarks of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) are relevant to clause stand part.

David Wilshire: I note that you prevented me from saying that I agreed with my hon. Friend, Sir Alan, so I shall not do so.
	The last point that I want to raise relates to land access between Kaliningrad and Russia. In a previous incarnation as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, I was closely involved with that issue when discussing it with regard to Poland and the Baltic states.

John Bercow: At length.

David Wilshire: Not on that occasion.
	Will the Minister tell us whether the protocol will be able to cope with the dangers and risks involved in that land access? It would be the only place where two parts of a sovereign state are divided by part of the EU. It would be sensible to allow Kaliningrad land access to the rest of the country to which it belongs. However, when we take the trouble to find out about the state of affairs in Kaliningradthe poverty, the shambles of the economy and whether it can manage to produce any income for its citizenswe have every reason to worry furiously about crime, smuggling and many other things about which we should be extremely wary.
	Discussions about Euro-policing are not for this Bill, but if we allow the protocol to pass, under the provisions of clause 1, we must be reassured that we are not opening the door to yet more crime from Russia, which would cause us huge difficulties. It is right for the people of Kaliningrad to be given access to the rest of Russia, but how is that to be policed? Are they halfway down the road to being able to go where they like and do what they like? That worries me enormously.
	I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to raise what I believe are genuine anxietiesalthough the Minister may not agree. I end as I started: I am an enthusiastic supporter of enlargement, but, as with everything else, when we enter into somethingeven if we are in favour of itwe should do so with our eyes open. We need to know exactly what we are signing up to. The Minister's helpful interventions have put my mind at rest on some matters. I am sure that he has made a note of the remainder, and I hope that he will be able to respond to my queries so that I can enthusiastically vote with him and deliver the enlargement that he wants, and that we want.

Denis MacShane: I shall try to respond as briefly as possible. I do not want to go over Second Reading matters, nor do I want to engage in a general European debate on whether we should hold referendums and so on. Suffice it to note that, when the three previous enlargement treaties came before the House to be put into British law, there was no question of a referendum, and that people in other countries who called for a referendum on enlargement did so explicitly to shut out the 10 countries and deny them the chance to join the EUa message that I am sure that the Committee does not want to send today.
	I dealt with the point about Cypriot passports raised by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). I welcome the intervention about Estonia from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). I paid an enjoyable visit to Tallinn, which is recovering its glory as a great Hanseatic trading port. The city and its hinterland are quite remarkable.
	The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) talked about Kaliningrad, which is of the most acute interest to Lithuania. A sensible system of facilitated transit visas has been put in place. It means that Russians will be able to go from Kaliningrad to the rest of Russia with a specific visa for the purpose of that journey. There will not be the free access to the EU about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern.
	Britain is, of course, not part of the Schengen agreement and the accession countries will come bit by bit into Schengen, as the treaty makes clear. We will have the right of regard on that, but I do not think that we will have specific new problems to worry about that arise out of Schengen.
	On sovereign bases, it is true that the sovereign base areas were kept out of the European Union when we joined in 1973. The very simple reason is that they are military bases from which important military operations take place. The common agricultural policy will apply simply becauseagain, I think very sensiblylarge parts of the sovereign base area are agricultural land on which Greek Cypriot farmers go about their normal farming business. It is quite right that they should have the same rights as farmers in other parts of the European Union.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) for the energy that he has put into supporting the cause of Europe and, in particular, that of enlargement. He referred to infraction proceedings. To put it simply, all member statesnew and oldare subject to Community law. The Commission is the guardian of the treaties and it alone is responsible for infraction decisions. Rather than the suggestion that the 10 new member states will have different and less rigorous rights and duties on entering the European Union, I think that they want to keep moving their game to the highest European levels. It is right that they know from 1 May next year they will have to operate according to the same standards as the rest of their fellow European member states.
	My hon. Friend was right to say that we need to help, and we are helping through twinning and by sending civil servants and other technical experts to work on Ministries' specific action plans. In addition, there has been generous pre-accession funding and programmes to support that.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire referred to the need to sell enlargement. I apologise to the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) that a letter that I sent out muddled his first name with that of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). However, with their support, I have sent an enlargement poster to every hon. Member and I invite those present to take this poster, which is designed for secondary schools, to the secondary schools. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Suffolk suggests that there is not much demand for the poster. On the contrary, in co-operation with the Department for Education and Skills, we have already sent it out to every single school and we are receiving many requests for more posters. That just goes to show that, when the hon. Gentleman and I do something together, the country listens.

Richard Spring: What I said was thatsurprisingly enoughthere was not much demand for the poster in the House.

Denis MacShane: The photograph on the poster did every credit to the hon. Gentleman's handsome visage, but perhaps did not show me at my youngest and best. It is a serious matter, and I shall be visiting Birmingham on Wednesday with other Ministers and colleagues and the Polish Minister of European Affairs. With the help of the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, I shall also visit 100 UK towns and cities to talk about enlargement and to have discussions on the wider issues relating to our membership of the EU.The current external borders will remain in place with the new member states until they have undergone due process by the existing member states.
	I was asked about the European parliamentary elections and procedures. The language in the Bill is identical to that in all previous Bills that have been enacted by the House. As I said in my opening remarks, the number of seats is being altered to allow the 25 members to have an appropriate and proportionate number of seats. If Romania, Bulgaria and other countries join, we will have to look at the matter again.
	I noted the animadversions of the hon. Member for Spelthorne on the fact that only 60 per cent. of the people of Slovenia voted to say yes to the EU. I notice that 27 per cent. of the electorate in his constituency voted for him. I am sure that they made a sound choice, but only 27 per cent. said yes to him.
	Mention was made of the Commission proposals that have been put to the Council in the form of a communication on how some matters relating to Cyprus will be handled if Cyprus does not become reunited before 1 May. I am happy to put a copy of that document in the Library so that it is available to hon. Members.
	If there are any points that I have not covered, I will be happy, on request, to write to hon. Members with any detailed information that they may desire.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	  
	Freedom of movement for workers

Richard Spring: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 5, at end insert
	'; but no such regulations shall be made within two years of the passing of this Act'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2 in page 2, line 5, at end insert
	'; but no such regulations shall be made within seven years of the passing of this Act'.
	No. 4, in page 2, line 5, at end insert
	'; but no such regulations shall be made until the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and the Treasury shall have laid before Parliament reports on the expected effects of those regulations'.
	No. 5, in page 2, line 5, at end insert
	'( ) If the Secretary of State makes regulations under this section he shall lay before Parliament a report on their effect for the duration of the seven-year period during which a derogation from the implementation of European Union rights on free movement of workers is permitted to the relevant acceding States.'.

Richard Spring: We have tabled these amendments because we are not fully satisfied that the Government have given due thought to all the consequences of allowing free movement of workers from 1 May.
	I should like to make it clear from the outset that we have no animus against the people of the accession countries and believe that those countries' accession will enrich themselves and the EU overall. We have said that on many occasions over the years. On the contrary, I can only repeat that, when in government, our party was one of the first advocates of enlargement to embrace central and eastern Europe, as this Government acknowledged in their written statement of 10 December. It said that
	the UK has been a champion of enlargement from the start.
	We warmly welcome the participation of these countries in the European Union, and, of course, that implies freedom of movement of the peoples of the member states.
	It should not be doubted that, in due course, the full enjoyment of the rights of free movement of workers by all 25 EU member states' citizens will be beneficial to everyone through leading people to richer and broader lives and to businesses being able to attract the best employees within the EU, both in the accession countries and in the United Kingdom. Free movement of workers with all other countries that have joined the EU has ultimately proved advantageous to all parties. There is no reason to suppose that over time this should prove any different. However, that does not mean that it is wise to refuse a derogation on free movement of workers from the actual date of accession. I am concerned that the Government have simply failed to argue their case adequately or convincingly. I hope that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration will take the opportunity to make their case this afternoon.
	The Government have published a written statement of fewer than 500 words, which was long on assertions but short on facts. Those assertions may be right, but we simply have little way of knowing. Thus our amendments bring a greater logic and consistency to this issue, and should be seen in this light.
	The Government have not published a full and up-to-date report into the likely effect of not taking advantage of the options for national measures until apparently this morning. Is it not unwise of them to fail to take that option? The last study on this matter that the Government published was a study for the Department for Education and Employment, as it then was, which was issued as far back as July 1999. Last year's written statement announced that the Home Office had commissioned research on the matter. I hope that the Minister will respond to these points later.
	However, that research was not published in time for the House of Commons Library to make use of it in its paper on the Bill, and that can be regarded as a great pity by everyone interested in this matter. It was not published in time for Members to consider the research and apply the facts available for the Second Reading debate. Nor was it published in time for Members to use the research when tabling amendments to the Bill. Instead, I am informed that it has been published today. Now, that surely cannot be right. Why today of all days? I had hoped and thought that the Government had recently learned some lessons.
	It is not right that the Government should publish documents that are highly relevant to the Bill too late for hon. Members who vote on it to consider them properly. Can the Minister say with his hand on his heart that the Government show a real commitment to parliamentary accountability when we are in such a situation?
	I am depressed still more by the unnecessary nature of the situation. The Bill need not have warranted amendment. The whole House could have united behind every detail of it lock, stock and barrel. Why have the Government kept back relevant information until it is too late for it to be of real use to Parliament during consideration of the Bill? That happens all too frequently. I hope that the Minister will give a full explanation of the regrettable timing and that he will commit the Front Bench to undertake more open and accountable discussions of information in the future when the failure to impart information in good time is so obvious. I hope that you do not mind me saying that, Sir Alan, because it is an important point about parliamentary consideration, especially in relation to the Bill.
	In that context, we tabled amendment No. 4. The Government have taken a serious decision. Such a decision should be taken with as much information as possible, and such information should be easily available not only to Ministers, but to Parliament. The potentially large movement of workers into this country would have important consequences for several Government Departments. We know that the national health service has been burdened by numerous so-called health visitors. It is only right that all Government Departments should consider the consequences of such a movement properly and that hon. Members should be able to inform themselves of the impact of regulations across the board before making a decision on any statutory instrument that might ensue. The Government have nothing to lose and everything to gain by accepting the underlying point behind the amendment. As I said, they have not provided Parliament with a proper or thorough advance study of why they believe that allowing full freedom of workers' movements from 1 May is in Britain's best interests. That should, and could, be spelled out. Indeed, it is extraordinary that the Government have not undertaken and published such a study. Such open government would have been commendable. At the price of only a little work by Parliament and the Government, the Government's duty to the public would have been performed somewhat better.
	We tabled amendment No. 5 because we want full and proper accountability to Parliament on any regulations. Regulations and statutory instruments that become law should be made with due consideration. Nine existing member states will impose national measuressome for two years and some for seven yearsand six member states will not. We and the Government will be able to judge the effect of each decision in the forthcoming years. I accept that the Government have provided for safeguards but if the deployment of such safeguards becomes necessary, it should be explicitly clear why that course was taken.
	There is no harm in the Government reflecting on the logic of the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is right for regulations to be subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment would allow us to do exactly that. In any case, I am sure that the Secretary of State will keep the effect of his regulations under close review. The amendment would ensure proper accountability. Such scrutiny should not be feared but welcomed, and if the Government accept the logic behind the amendment, it would show that they are taking their decisions with proper consideration.
	The Government will be aware that there will be exceptional disparities of wealth in the European Union when the accession countries join formally. For example, Latvia, which is the poorest of the accession countries, has a gross domestic product per capita of only Euro7,700 while our GDP is Euro23,300 per capitaabout the EU mean. Only one accession country, Cyprus, has a relatively higher GDP per capita.
	Likewise, many accession countries have regrettably high rates of unemployment. Poland has a rate of 18.5 per cent., whereas our rate is a much more respectable 5 per cent. Let me dwell on Poland for a moment, especially in terms of size and importance, because it is perhaps the linchpin of the accession process. Poland will not benefit immediately from accession. In fact, it will be a net contributor and will be a net beneficiary of structural funding only in subsequent years. There will be a transitional phase of at least two to three years but we hope that that will not deter the Poles, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, from voting in adequate numbers to approve accession this weekend.
	The Government fall back on a series of reports commissioned by the employment and social affairs directorate-general of the European Commission. The headline figures show that 350,000 immigrants will leave their homes in central and eastern European countries to move to their more prosperous neighbours. A professor of social policy at the London school of economics labelled that figure as a serious underestimate and suggested that the real figure could be in the order of millions. That divergence of views is due to the methodology adopted by the Commission-sponsored reports. The reports are largely based on an analysis of migration between the more impoverished East Germany and West Germany before the fall of the Berlin wall and the reunification of Germany. The analysis fails to take proper account of levels of fiscal transfer between the west and east in the period following reunification. Reunification cost 400 billion between 1990 and 2000, and that money went to an area with a population of only 17 million people. Yet, unemployment and wage levels will remain significantly lower than those in the former West Germany.
	Compare that money with the amount offered to Poland, which has a population of nearly 40 million people. Depending on common agricultural policy reform and the next budget round, Poland might be offered about Euro15.5 billion from the EU over a similar period of 12 years. I ask the House to consider what happened in Germany relative to the challenge facing Poland. The accession countries will not receive a fraction of the Government investment that East Germany received and given their economic weakness, it is difficult not to worry about the prospect of considerably greater immigration to the United Kingdom.
	If one examines opinion poll evidence from the candidate countries rather than using the Commission's reports uncritically, there is an indication that the extent of immigration to the United Kingdom is likely to be far greater than that suggested. Reports using opinion poll data in the accession countries suggest that several million people plan to move to the west. Research carried out by the International Organisation for Migration suggests that it is likely that the United Kingdom would be the third most popular choice for people intending to leave central and eastern European accession states. That is hardly comforting because even though this country is the third choice, some 24 per cent. of the population of the Czech Republic have expressed a desire, in principle at least, to come to the United Kingdom.
	Research suggesting that the UK is placed after Germany and Austria as a favoured country for immigration is based on polling that has not been updated since 1998. It is thus probable that the UK would be even more popular than the research suggests for two reasons: the prevalence of the English language among younger and more footloose professionals, and the relative economic performance of the UK versus Austria and Germany over the past five years. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] Of course, the performance is so good because despite opposition from Labour Members, structural reforms made in the 1980s enabled that to occur. I think that some of us entered politics because of the utter shambles and chaos in the country in the late 1970s.
	Eurobarometer polls rank English as the language regarded as most useful by 86 per cent. of respondents in the candidate countries.

Alan Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman complete the picture by giving the House polling data on the number of people who have indicated an interest in leaving the UK to settle elsewhere in the EU, and the number of people who have expressed an interest in leaving their abodes in cities to move to the countryside in the UK?

Richard Spring: I cannot offer that evidence to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure we could try to secure an answer for him, but perhaps his question might be more usefully addressed to some of the more affluent members of the Government Front Bench. It is not unreasonable to predict substantial labour flows should the freedom of movement of workers be allowed from 1 May. If there is the possibility of emigration from the United Kingdom, I do not think that it in any way compares with the possibility of more substantial immigration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not disagree with me on that.
	It is difficult to make a judgment. It is not simply that there might be some small detriment to our economy should that movement take place. One of the great hopes for enlargement is that it will allow the accession countries to build themselves up so that they are in a more viable position, something that we certainly wish to see. We want the effect of enlargement to be like the effect of the accession on Spain, which has been a considerable success story in many respects. We would not want it to have the same effect as the reunification of East Germany, which has experienced a tragic drain of brain power and youth from east to west.
	It would not be desirable for the same thing to occur now. We certainly want to avoid any damage to the new members' economies, many of which were held back during the communist era. So some caution on the immediate granting of free movement of workers from 1 May 2004 would not be misplaced. We expect some adjustments for about two years and hope that things settle down when all EU members begin to enjoy the solid benefits of enlargement, which every hon. Member accepts in the longer run. None the less, it would be wise to have safeguards with a clear time period. Should fears of dislocation to our economies and employment systems prove groundless, national measures could always be lifted. In practice, the matter cuts both ways.

Beverley Hughes: I am listening carefully because it is important that we base our decision on the discretion on the best possible evidence and case. I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he arguing for transitional arrangements on the free movement of workers primarily because that element will increase significantly the migration that might take place anyway as result of free movement rights more generally, or is he concerned about the impact on the UK economy? Is it, perhaps, that he is concerned about the potential negative impact of people moving out of the accession countries? Can he clarify which of those arguments he is using and on what evidence he bases his view?

Richard Spring: With respect, I am astonished. That is exactly what I have been explaining for the past 10 or 15 minutes[Interruption.] Well, I have cited those as possible problems and, because of that, advocate a period of caution, which other countries have favoured. Why does the Minister think that so many other EU members have secured those derogations? We do not know the effect of such movement, but I am sure she will agree that the very last thing we want to do is to create the situation, which I have cited as possible, that arose in East Germany where there was a considerable brain drain to the west, which was damaging. Equally, we want to ensure that a period of stability applies within those countries, especially in Poland where there is high unemployment, during the transitional phase while they are net contributors to the EU.
	We do not know exactly what the effect will be. I am happy to concede that. Hopefully the Minister will provide the figures that her Department has so far been unable to produce, despite commissioning the report. I hope that when she responds she will apologise to the House for the way in which her Department has dealt with the matter. It is all very well for her to ask me such questions, but the House is interested in why the figures have not been produced because it is appalling.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman was at pains to point out that he had spent 10 or 15 minutes explaining in detail the circumstances of migration, yet he appears to be using, among other things, examples that relate to internal movement within a sovereign country, in particular Germany. Does he accept that there was internal movement within Germany before reunification, from north to south? Indeed, there has been internal movement within EU countries over a number of years. The example of the East Germans moving to West Germany, from one sovereign state to another, is not germane to the issue. It is, in fact, germane to a study of population movements within the EU as a whole. Perhaps he has some thoughts on that.

Richard Spring: I was simply citing what happened in Germany and highlighting what happens when there is a juxtaposition between countries with far higher and far lower GDPs per capita. Of course there were cultural reasons for that movement, such as the German language, but had the hon. Gentleman listened he would know that I also cited reports, including opinion poll data, which suggest a considerable desire of people in many parts of the accession country states potentially to move. A number of our fellow EU countries sought derogations, but this country did not and the Government offered no reason for that. Perhaps that will be explained this afternoon. We certainly have not received any evidence thus far from the Government to explain why they took that decision. Whatever one thinks about the matter, the hon. Gentleman must agree that it has been a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to supply the evidence so that a proper consideration can be made.

John Bercow: I am sorry that I missed the opening part of my hon. Friend's speech because it is only now that I am able to enjoy listening to his mellifluous tones. In the light of the evident apprehension of the Minister, does my hon. Friend agree that in responding to amendment No. 1 and in setting out the Government's position, it would help if Ministers would explain whether they are agreeable to the principle of a full debate under the affirmative procedure on the regulations when introduced and, if not, why not?

Richard Spring: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I hope that Ministers have taken it on board.
	I emphasise that we are in the fortunate position that some of our EU partners are not taking advantage of the option for national measures. Others are taking advantage of the option of two years and others of seven. We have the opportunity to see all the possible effects play out in those partners' economies and employment. We could then take whatever action we thought best. I believe that the Government's policy announcement was well meaning but premature. It would be wise of them to reconsider and wait a bit, as many of our European partners have done. Then they could take an informed decision, which would work best for us and for the accession countries' citizens. Hence the amendments.
	I cannot forbear from mentioning that a claim was made in the statement on 10 December that the Government have a managed immigration agenda. If only. That is what we need. Does the Minister agree that free movement of workers from the accession states cannot simply be taken piecemeal but must form part of a broader review of how this country manages immigration? The sorry fact of the matter is that people in this country no longer believe the Government on so many of their announcements, not least on immigration. In the absence of that confidence, we do not want to see the rise of extremism on the fringes of British politics, something that we all detest. We badly need a joined-up approach, from health care to payment of benefits. If the people of Britain felt confident that the Government had proper control, community relations would be strengthened.
	As it is, because of the incoherence of the Government's policy on immigration over the past two years, there has been a great rise in confusion and anxiety. We value the tolerant and liberal society that we enjoy and cherish in this country. It is one of our chief sources of pride in being British, but I know that some in Britain are concerned about the effect of enlargement in that respect. I repeat that a period of adjustment would allay those fears or show them to be groundless.
	We must also consider the employment effects on the enlarged EU's new neighbours. As I am sure the Minister is aware, there are fears in Ukraine about enlargement's effects on seasonal labourfor instance, on Ukrainian citizens working in Poland. We will need a strategy to deal with the EU's relations with nations east of the Vistula.
	Before finishing, I shall return briefly to a point that we touched on on Second Reading. It is likely that an intergovernmental conference will be launched this autumn. Again, there is some lack of clarity about the exact dates. I am aware that the Copenhagen conclusions state that the accession countries should participate fully in the IGC. That is indeed a worthy aspiration, yet in practice anyone who has spoken to officials in the Commission about accession Governments will be aware that until 1 May 2004 the accession countries will experience a grey zone or period of limbo in their standing in the EU. It is difficult to see how, during that period, their opinions will have equal weight with those of existing member states in the treaty negotiations.

Denis MacShane: I understand that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend met the Czech Foreign Minister recently. The Czechs are looking forward to participating. The hon. Gentleman must stop misleading the House continually by insisting that our partners in the new Europe whose citizens he wishes to exclude from participating, if they so wish, in our labour market will not have the full right to participate in the intergovernmental conference on the same basis as the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman must stop that line.

Michael Lord: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not accuse any other hon. Member of misleading the House. I should be grateful if he would withdraw that remark.

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman must stop inadvertently continually, repeatedly saying that which no one else

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That will do.

Richard Spring: I am grateful, Sir Michael. The great characteristic of the Minister for Europeand may he reign supreme on the Front Bench after next weekis his ability to get in a hole and keep digging. He made the point admirably and I shall leave it at that, as I do not want to cause him any further embarrassment.
	I do not understand why there is a rush to sign a new treaty. Most intergovernmental conferences take a year to conclude, but the timetable seems more like six months.

Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Sir Michael. The instructions of the IGC are not relevant to the clause.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may leave such matters to the Chair.

Richard Spring: It is always a joy to hear from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). Every single thing that he forecast up to, including and beyond Nice was totally inaccurate. That will be his secure place in history.
	My party, as I said earlier, and as my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and all my hon. Friends have indicated, supports the broad thrust of the Bill. That has been a consistent theme of our time both in government and in opposition. The Bill ratifying the accession treaty of course allows enlargement to take place, but I remind the House that although the Prime Minister said that the Convention was necessary to make enlargement work, that was incorrect.
	I ask the Government to consider the amendments. I do not believe that they have thought out fully the consequences of their policy commitment. It would be difficult for them to do so as they were not able to publish the evidence until this morning. When the Minister responds, I hope that she will make it clear what employment restrictions the Foreign Secretary had in mind and what their implications would be if he reintroduced them, as he indicated in his written ministerial statement of 10 December 2002. I hope that we will have a considered response from the Minister this afternoon. The issue is the subject of lively debate throughout the European Union. Although there have been the reports that I mentioned, including that of the European Commission and the polling data, the British Government have failed the House by not providing the information necessary for debate on this important subject.

Denzil Davies: I shall deal briefly with a concern that has been expressed to me by my constituents in respect of the freedom of movement of workers that will take effect from 1 May next year. I certainly do not support the amendments moved by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). My purpose is to highlight to those on my Front Bench some concerns about a sensitive aspect of the movement of people in the new enlarged European Union. I refer to a possible influx of what is described as the Roma people from, I believe, the old Czechoslovakia, where most Roma people seem to be resident.
	Constituents have raised the matter with me following a documentary programme on the BBC or one of the other channels. It was a serious programme that did not attempt to exaggerate the problem. There are certain constituencies and areas in the country, as hon. Members know, which have had difficulties in the past with what I may describe as travellers. When constituents who have experienced such problems see a programme of that kind, they begin to worry that there may be an influx of travellers into areas such as west Wales where, as in other areas, we have had the problem for a long time. I express that concern to my hon. Friends in the hope that the matter can be examined quietly, without exaggerating the difficulties.
	There are problems with regard to terminology, but they are not academic problems. We were told in the programme that it dealt with the Roma people who, I understand, are identical to the Romany people whose ancestors, apparently, came from the Punjab a long time ago. Some of them came to Britain in the 16th century. The Brits thought they were Egyptians and called them gypsies.
	The more comprehensive term is travellers. In west Wales most travellers are described as Irish tinkers, although in Northern Ireland, I believe, there is a statutory recognition whereby they are called the Irish travelling community. Those may be mere words, but they are important. Travellers apparently are not considered by the courts as a distinctive racial group, and therefore do not have the protection of the Race Relations Act 1976.
	I understand, although I am not an expert on this branch of the law, that there is some authority from the courts whereby gypsies are considered a distinctive racial group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act. I do not think there are any recent cases in Britain relating to the status of Roma or Romany people, but if there were an influx into this country, I should think that, by analogy with the case law on gypsies, Roma or Romany would also be considered a distinctive racial group. The Race Relations Act, with all its difficulty and sensitivity, would then apply.
	There is other legislation as well. There is, I am told, although I have not been able to find it, European Union legislation generated by what the Germans under Hitler did to the Roma people. That EU legislation seeks to protect gypsies, travellers and the Roma. Domestic legislation has been passed with regard in particular to caravan sites, which in the main are the responsibility of local authorities.
	In my constituency and west Wales, local authorities have administered those rules with considerable sensitivity: they have bent over backwards to ensure that travellers or gypsies who live on the sites have their rights, are treated properly, and are dealt with in a sensitive manner. However, the local authorities' responsible attitude has not always been reciprocated, and sometimes my local authority has found itself in the courts. County council officials, who usually lose the cases, feel that they can never win against the gypsies in the courts, because the law is loaded against the county council. I do not know whether that is trueanyone who loses in the courts thinks the law is an assbut overall I think that there is some sense, some justification, for local government officials' conclusion that in this respect the law has gone too far, to the extent that it does not enable the county council to protect the whole area as it should be able to.
	Next, there is the wider question of law enforcementthe enforcement of criminal law and, increasingly in relation to some of the sites, of environmental law. Although it may be trite to say that everyone should be equal before the law, and in particular that minorities should be equal before the law, there is sometimes a real problem with the enforcement of criminal law against groups of what we may call travellers who do not always observe the laws of the area in which they are living. In a multicultural society, it is extremely important that minorities are protected, and we do protect them through specific legislation; similarly, equality before the law is also important. However, there is a suspicion that sometimes the criminal law and environmental law are not always enforced with rigour against groups such as travellers, although they are enforced against the rest of the community, minority or majority.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am listening carefully and hoping to hear more about the European dimension in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Denzil Davies: The European dimension is that if there is a large influx of Roma people into this country, the existing problems will be magnified. I ask Ministers, especially Home Office Ministers, quietly and without making too much of a fuss to examine the present set-up and existing legislation to see whether they can withstand an influx of travellers, Roma or gypsy people who may come as a result of the Bill being passed. I do not support the transitional arrangements proposed by the hon. Member for West Suffolk, but I ask my hon. Friends to consider the issue so that the problem can be dealt with if it ever arises. I do not know whether it will arise, although I suspect that it will not, and the programme that highlighted the issue did not imply that it would. However, there is a possibility that certain areas of the country that act as magnets for travellers will experience an influx and my concern is to ensure not only that our law and our enforcement of our law are fair, but that tensions are not created, that the law is enforced and that we have the proper framework to deal with that possible influx. It is better to examine the arrangements and work out our response now than to experience problems later that we cannot deal with.
	I do not expect an answer during this debate, but I hope that the Home Office or some other Departmentwith devolution, I am not sure how things workwill examine the matter, just in case. There is a problem at the moment and it might be magnified and made far worse if there is an influx of Romany or Roma people or travellers from eastern Europe as a result of the Bill being passed.

Michael Moore: As the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) would expect, I listened carefully to him moving the amendments and the manner in which he did so. I agree with some of his remarks, for example, on the need for proper and adequate information and on the need for Government accountability to be at the forefront of all that we do in this House. However, we Liberal Democrats support the principle of the Bill, which is that all citizens of the accession countries should have full rights in the EU from day one. They will have the freedom to travel and to stay in this country and we believe that their having the right to work here makes good sense. In practical terms, that must remove any suspicions from those who seek to enter this country under their freedom to travel rights, and police and others will no longer need to spend a lot of time questioning the motives and activities of people from new member states who have come to this country.
	Let me say up front that I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman wishes to pander to the arguments of some on the far right who attack immigration and immigrants. In his speech, he referred to the dangers of such views and dissociated himself from them. However, we in this country are sometimes in danger of forgetting our proud heritage of welcoming immigrants, sometimes as refugees, who go on to make huge and valid contributions to our economy. We need to face facts: this country has many skills shortages which enlargement may help us to tackle. It is entirely appropriate to welcome all citizens of such countries as soon as they have formally become part of the EU.
	Safeguards are included in the accession treaty, and it is entirely appropriate that the Government monitor the situation, as I am sure they propose to do. I do not quite understand why the two-year and seven-year restrictions in the amendments have been chosen, or why they would achieve something that would not be achieved by ongoing monitoring.

Richard Spring: The answer is simply that those are the derogations that have been secured by existing EU member countries.

Michael Moore: I accept that other countries have achieved them. I was simply waiting to hear why the hon. Gentleman thought they were appropriate.
	At the end of this debate, a judgment has to be made on the appropriate way forward. It appears to us that the Bill as drafted and the safeguards outlined will be sufficient to achieve the objectives. We believe that legal immigration and the associated economic benefits are preferable to illegal immigration and the associated costs. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendments.

Alan Whitehead: I support the Government view on the arrangements for free movement of workers, and I suggest that the amendments are inappropriate. I draw the Committee's attention to some spectacularly poor pieces of empirical evidence brought to bear by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) in moving the amendments. I intervened on him to discover whether he was aware of the number of people in the UK who respond to opinion polls by saying either that they would wish to move from whether they currently live, predominantly in cities, to the country, or that they might wish to move out of the country entirely.
	Regrettably, he was unable to provide me with the information contained in those polls. However, I recall that the figures set out in a number of them revealed that about 70 per cent. of those who responded to the polls suggested that they might like to move from the city to the country, and 25 per cent. said that they might like to move out of the country to live and work somewhere else.
	We all know that that does not happen. Seventy per cent. of people are not about to move to the country, and nor are 25 per cent. of the work force about to leave the UK to live and work somewhere else. Yet the hon. Member for West Suffolk appears to suggest, with authority, that similar polls conducted in applicant countries are likely to be absolutely right. The fact is that they are not. They are no more likely to be right than the polls that have been conducted in the UK, as we can see from the evidence.
	Of course, some people will respond to polls in the new accession countries by saying that they might consider moving and working abroad.

Mark Simmonds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in agricultural communities such as mine in Lincolnshire there are a significant number of migrant workers, some legal and some illegal, who have come from what will be the accession countries? That is causing a great deal of unrest in places such as Boston. The problem will be exacerbated after the proposed legislation is put in place.

Alan Whitehead: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that. I shall come later to the question of so-called illegal migrant workers. I thought that he might ask me whether I was aware that many people in urban communities are moving into rural communities. That is the situation in some instances. I was making the point that the opinion polls that we are discussing cannot be relied upon in any country as accurate measures of likely future movements.

Chris Bryant: There are about 500,000 Brits living in Spain who have effectively revivified large parts of the economy of southern Spain. Is it not true that sometimes immigration is downright positive, instead of the negative version that we hear sometimes from Opposition Members?

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. To assume that any movement will be bad news is to paint an unnecessarily negative picture of what happens in reality.
	The other piece of empirical evidence that the hon. Member for West Suffolk brings as a centrepiece to his arguments is what has happened in Germany. That is curious. I attempted to remind him in an intervention that after Germany was unified it became one state. Social movement, movement between families and movement to obtain work temporarily then applied as they apply internally in any other state. I made the point that over many years there have been instances within EU states where movement within those states has been detrimental to some parts of the economies of those countries and helpful to other parts of those economies. Indeed, the EU already has arrangements in place for regional assistance and aid within its structural funds.

Richard Spring: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is slightly missing the point of my remarks. I gave a range of opinions, including that of the Commission. I hope that he will agree with me, and say so, when I say that given that it was well known that the Bill would come up for consideration in Parliament, it is appalling that the Government's view, and their commitment to providing a view on these issues, was released only today. We would not need to have this discussion if the Government had provided the information in an appropriate way.

Alan Whitehead: I agree that information should be before hon. Members in the best available formand I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to guide and enlighten the Committee on that point. As I was not, and am not, party to how the figures were released, I can shed no further light on the matter.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk is making a series of hypothetical points. That is important in terms of the evidence on which he relies. Entirely different circumstances apply in Germany, for example. The rather nebulous wishes that may be expressed by some people in applicant states have little bearing on the reality of what will happen or is likely to happen.

Ann Winterton: I find it difficult to follow the case that the hon. Gentleman is advancing. I have half-German cousins, and I suggest to him that following reunification it was found that people from the east, who were in low-wage jobs, tried to move to the west, where there were better wage rates. At the same time, investment in industry went from the west to the east. It seems to me that that is a pretty good example of what might happen if there is a wave of immigration to the higher wage earning countries from the poorer countries in the east, and investment will probably go in the opposite direction.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Lady claims that she has listened carefully to my train of argument, but she appears not to have listened at all. I was not talking about the movement of people from one state to another. To combine my two points, the circumstances in which people express the wish to move from their sovereign state to another state often do not come to pass in reality. People who respond to opinion polls in this country do not do what they say they will do when confronted by somebody with a clipboard in the street. As the hon. Lady says, matters may be different in terms of internal arrangements within sovereign states in some circumstances.
	As the hon. Lady will know from her direct experience, the circumstances of the reunification of Germany, including the population movements and the economic movements, and the social and cultural problems, arethis is my viewspecific to the German circumstances, and are fairly complex.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk is seeking to suggest that it is likely that millions of people will come from the applicant states to the UK to live and work after the EU has expanded. That case is made on extremely flimsy groundsthat is the argument that I was attempting to put forward.

Ann Winterton: In rubbishing the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), the hon. Gentleman might reflect on what has happened so far. Why are so many economic migrants coming to the UK? They come for various reasons.

Michael Ancram: The climate?

Ann Winterton: No, not the climate.
	These people are coming because we have a high-wage economy. We have a national health service and a social security system that are second to none in the entire EU. There are other reasons why they are coming, too. Let us throw away all those polls, as I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they are not worth the paper that they are written on. None the less, from experience, does he not accept that there is a case for suggesting that people may come to the west from the applicant nations for the reasons that I have given? That is a real issue, and the people of this country are concerned about it.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Lady has now shifted the ground on which she is speaking. I am delighted that she has agreed that the case made about polls by her hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk appears to have little substance. I agree that some economic migrants are coming to this country, and that some are doing so illegally. That is the other important point that we should think about in relation to the Bill. As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said, the accession treaty allows free movement of people in the EU, but if the provisions were not agreed to, it would not allow movement to work. That is what we are talking aboutnot immigration, but movement to work.
	It is true that some people in this country, including some in my city, and in the towns and cities represented by other hon. Members, are working illegally. The point about combining free movement in the EU after accession and the right to work is that circumstances will come together whereby people can work legally and be regulated and checked up on. They can also be covered by the minimum wage, for example, so they will not have any dealings with the white vans that we sometimes see at 5 o'clock in the morning picking up people who are often in very difficult circumstances so that they can work illegally, often for tiny wages.
	The practical outcome of the provisions is that a number of those circumstances will be ameliorated. The fact that people will be able to have a national insurance number, and their wages and conditions of employment will be able to be regulated, is good news for all of us in this country, including the constituents whose views the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) brings to the Chamber in raising worries about what is likely to happen after accession.
	That is good news for all of us, over and above the ideaan idea that I shall simply leave on the tablethat we are not in a position to do without anybody else in our labour force in years to come. We should not underestimate the importance of the contribution provided by free movement of labour in the EU to this country's ability to work economically in years to come.

Wayne David: I am somewhat disappointed by the amendments. We have to be careful about how we conduct this debate, and extremely careful about the language that we employ.
	I am pleased that the Bill includes the clause under discussion and that the Government indicated in December last year that, in respect of the eight applicant states that seek the right of freedom to work in the current European Union, the UK would introduce measures from the date of accession that would make that right available. That is to be welcomed, and it has been extremely well received by the applicant countries.
	Opposition Members have expressed concerns about the Bill, but I cast my mind back to just a few years ago, when we discussed the applications of other states to join the European Union. I well remember the debate about Portugal, Greece and Spain, in which many people said, Oh, this will be terrible; we'll have thousands upon thousands of Portuguese, Greeks and Spaniards flocking to our shores, taking British jobs and making British people unemployed. Has it happened? No. Will it happen in the future? No. In fact, as has been mentioned, the opposite has been the trend and more and more British people have been moving to work and retire in countries such as Portugal, Greece and Spain.
	Particular reference has been made to one central European countryPoland, where the current unemployment rate is 18.5 per cent. However, it would be profoundly wrong for us to imagine for one moment that because the clause will apply to Poland, just as to the other seven countries, millions of unemployed Polish workers will come to this country trying to find work.
	The reason why that will not happen is that family, cultural and distance restraints will inevitably apply. People will want to have the opportunity to leave, but the practical impediments are such that we will not experience a mass migration of labour. History, and all the economic and social analyses, tell us that.
	The scaremongering that we hear from some quarters will inevitably be short-lived. That is because although unemployment is high in parts of Poland, for example, the economies of the countries of central Europe will strengthen remarkably in a relatively short space of time. The accession process involves the employment of structural funds and the liberalisation of markets, so those countries will have an opportunity that they have not had in a generation, which will be a tremendous boost leading to higher levels of indigenous employment. If what I am saying is wrong, safeguards are in place, and there is nothing to prevent the Government from reintroducing regulations if they so wish, but nobody who has considered the matter in any great detail and depth can believe that such a scenario is likely.
	My next remarks may not be at all popular with Conservative Members. This country, particularly south-east England, needs more workers coming in who have the skills to help us to build our economy and create a strong, productive economic base. We have a strong economy, which I hope will get stronger, and we need people from outside to work with us to create the economic prosperity that we all seek. That is not a common perceptionI appreciate thatand many Conservative Members will be almost pathologically opposed to such a concept, but it is the truth. In my area of south Wales, the whole industrial experience is about workers from different parts of Europe coming in and helping to create the prosperity that our region once enjoyed and, I hope, will enjoy again.
	In approaching this issue we must be honest, but broad-minded as well. If we are immediately to create the right kind of atmosphere in this new enlarged Europe, we must have a proper and enlightened attitude to such matters. I therefore sincerely hope that Conservative Members will have second thoughts about the amendments, so that we do not send out a negative and unintended message to the countries who wish to join, and, what is more, that they will not try to pursue an agenda that is against our economic best interests.

Beverley Hughes: Let me say at the outset that I hope that in addressing the points raised by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), as well as other Members who contributed constructively to the debate, I can convince him to withdraw the amendment. I shall deal later with his criticisms about the time at which the report has been produced.
	I hope that Conservative Members can join us in supporting the whole Bill, not only because the Government included clause 2 for sound reasons, but because it is important that we send as positive a signal as possiblenot just as a Government, but as a whole Parliamentto all the acceding countries. There is a danger that somebody reflecting on today's proceedings could be concerned about what the amendments imply about Conservative Members' attitude towards some of the new member states. They say that they support enlargement, but their amendments suggest that, although there is no need for it from a UK point of view, they want nationals from new member states to be treated, at least in the first phase, as second-class citizens.

Richard Spring: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Beverley Hughes: I will just finish this point, then I will be happy to give way.
	It is our position that the Government should extend to these countries the hand of friendship, offer them full acceptance at the earliest opportunityprovided that there is no economic or other reason relating to UK interests not to do soand not close the door in the first few years.

Richard Spring: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Of course we shall listen very carefully to what she has to say and to the explanations that she gives. We shall obviously consider our amendments in that light. Let me make it absolutely plain, however, that I will not accept for a moment any inference on her part that our seeking this derogation through the amendments somehow implies something negative towards the accession countries. I will simply say that Finland, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium and Austria have all sought such derogations. I hope that the hon. Lady is not casting aspersions on those countries.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has made that point before. From my information, he is quite incorrect about the position of other countries on this matter so far. According to my information, at least six, and possibly seven, countriesincluding the UKhave already decided not to seek the derogation.

Richard Spring: There are 15 member states, by the way.

Beverley Hughes: Yes. A further three have yet to make any decision at all, including some of those the hon. Gentleman named, such as Italy and Luxembourg. They might well follow the lead that has been given by the UK and the other five or six countries that have already declared that they will not impose such regulations or seek the derogation. Almost half the countries have already decided not to impose transitional arrangementssome have yet to announce a decisionand so far, only four have said that they probably will, and they have not firmly committed themselves to a time scale. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has conveyed his information from a position of not being fully informed, as opposed to anything else, but he is actually quite wrong.

Chris Bryant: Will my hon. Friend furthermore not accept the line given by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) that the whole of the Conservative party is unanimous in its support of enlargement? The truth is that Conservative Members of the European Parliament lobbied against yes votes in several of the new member states that we hope will be joining next year.

Beverley Hughes: I understand entirely the point that my hon. Friend is making. On the wider issue of the Opposition's position on this question and the amendments that they have tabled today, the Governments and the peoples of the new member states will form their own judgment as to who their supporters in the UK are. By withdrawing the amendments, however, Conservative Members have an opportunity to make their position absolutely unequivocal on the extent to which they wish to welcome the acceding countries at the earliest opportunity and in the fullest way into membership of the European Union.
	I should like to set out for hon. Membersparticularly Conservative Membersthe reasons, which we announced last December, why we wanted to give workers from the new member states the same rights to work in the UK as are enjoyed by existing EU nationals from the date of accession. That decision was made for very sound reasons, and was the product of serious consideration across all Departments which concluded in that governmental decision. In terms of overall migration, clause 2 deals with only a very small part of the free movement of workers. In fact, that free movement will have only a marginal impact, in terms of the overall migration as a result of enlargement per se.
	As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and others have acknowledged, the accession treaty provides that all citizens of the new member states will be able to enter the UK and other member states without restriction on 1 May 2004 and reside here freely. Preventing the relatively small number who want to come to work from doing so for any period makes little sense in the context of the UK, and it would have only marginal, if any, additional impact on migration as a whole.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) rightly referred to the lessons from history and the previous enlargement. I accept that there are important differences between that enlargement and this one, but there are considerable similarities none the less. The lessons from that enlargement are, first, that the fears expressed then about its impact on total migration proved to be completely unfounded and, secondly, as he rightly pointed out, that one of the factors behind that was the impact on the economies of the acceding countries.
	Despite what people may say in surveys of their aspirations to move, such as those pointed to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), when they have the opportunity to work in their own country, family ties, culture and identification with country of origin prove to be far more powerful in determining what people do than the pull factorsthe attractions of another country.

Richard Spring: I take the Minister's point on the net impact of countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal. Any concerns were not realised. However, I simply make the point that transitional arrangements were put in place when those countries acceded to the EU.

Beverley Hughes: They were, but they were also rescinded early. In the UK, they were not enforced beyond, as I recall, about two years, even though they were lifted after six. [Interruption.] Exactly, but that proves the point that they were not necessary. They were thought to be necessary then, but they proved not to be so. They were not enforced.
	May I get to the substance of the decision that we have reached on immediate free movement of workers? That decision was not taken lightly, and we looked carefully at a number of factors beforehand. First, we considered the experience of previous enlargement, when the fears of mass migration from those three countries proved to be unfounded despite apocalyptic fears being expressed at the time. Secondly, we examined the body of research on the possible impact on migration post-accession following this enlargement, including by the former Department for Education and Employment and by the European Commission. Both predict that the number of people migrating across the Union will not be significant as a result of this enlargement.
	We have also commissioned further independent research from University college London, which has been published today, to ensure that all the facts on which we based our decision are before us. That research looks at literature surveys and the previous studies, which I have referred to, as well as making its own econometric analysis and prediction of the impact on migration as a whole.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk has criticised us for the date of publication. I understand his point. We had interim findings from the research group earlierin Decemberto enable us to take that principled decision, but the completion of the draft by the people from whom it was commissioned was finalised only this week and we were unable to publish the final report before today. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I am pretty sure that we said that the report was coming. We announced that to the media today, and his colleague the shadow Home Secretary appeared to know that it was being published today, because he phoned my private office and was given access to it. It has been published on the website, which was announced, and I am happy to ensure that there is a copy in the Library.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. If we had been able to publish the report earlier we would have done so; but we made clear that it was on its wayand indeed some Conservative Front Benchers appeared to know that, and took the earliest possible opportunity of looking at it today.

Richard Spring: As the Minister knows, we had an important discussion about this on Second Reading. It is a key element of what the accession process is all about. Irrespective of whether the report was published this morning and whether someone had sight of it yesterday or knew it was coming, the fact is that the timing is quite impossible. The Minister must accept that producing a report on a matter that is so hugely important on the first day of the Bill's Committee stage is absolutely disgraceful.

Beverley Hughes: I acknowledge that that has placed the Opposition in a more difficult situation than I would care to contemplate, but this is independent research, and when it came to exactly when it was to be published we were in the hands of its authors.
	When all Members have had a chance to read the report, as well as research by the former Department for Education and Employment and the European Commission, they will observe that the predictions in the three documents about numbers and the overall impact of migration are very similar. It is predicted by all three that there will be only a small increase in the total number of those migrating from eastern to western Europewhether to visit, to study or to resideand that the number coming here to seek employment will be minimal. The research done for the Commission, for instance, suggests that within 30 years just 1.1 per cent. of the population of the current EU Fifteen will consist of nationals from the new member states. The current percentage is 0.2.
	Let me now refer to the overall conclusions of a study combining the research by the Department and the Commission's research. It envisages a number of scenarios. The worst-case scenario involves some of the differences between this enlargement and the previous one, referred to by the hon. Member for West Suffolkin particular, differences in income and GDP. The study concludes that even if we assume that the countries involved are high-emigration countries, and also that convergence in GDP is slow, migration to the UK as a result of eastward enlargement is unlikely to be too great. The evidence that we have collated from existingnot newsources suggests that net migration from the 10 accession countries to the UK will be in line with current migration.
	I repeat that that conclusion refers to total migration, most of which will result from the freedom of movement that is embedded in the treaty. The additional freedom of movement granted to workers from the date of accession will be minimal.
	Having considered history and the research evidence, we considered our own domestic situation. As a number of Members have pointed out, many UK employers are experiencing shortages in sectors such as hospitality, construction, food processing and transport. The new member states will provide the range of skills and the supply of workers that many UK employers need. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. Those workers will also be able to contribute to our economy, and it will all be legal and above board. I think that is why both the CBI and the TUC support our decision.
	Given those factors and given the wider benefits that the UK will reap from a positive message to the new member states, the only sensible option is to liberalise our labour markets from the point of accession. But, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly we have tempered that gesture with safeguards. We do not expect it to happen but, if there were an unexpected negative impact specifically from the movement of workers, we would be able to suspend or to amend the regulations under the Bill in order to reintroduce restrictions, so our decision, based on a sound analysis of history, of research and study and of the needs of our labour market, poses no risk and is copper-bottomed by a safeguard in the legislation. It will bring us many benefits, which the amendments would cancel out.
	Amendment No. 2 is contrary to the accession treaty, so it would be ultra vires. The accession treaty only allows existing member states to impose restrictions on workers for seven years if they can show the existence of a particular threat after five years have passed. At this stage, the restrictions can be only for a maximum of five years. The further two are only possible if, at that five-year stage, a particular threat can be shown.
	Obviously, we cannot know what the position in May 2009 will be. That is why we have decided to maintain the right to reimpose restrictions on workers if the evidence shows an influx of workers at any time after accession. If after five years there is such a threat, we can still restrict workers for up to seven years from accession, as allowed by the treaty.
	Amendment No. 4 would make the granting of free movement rights to workers from the eight relevant new member states dependent on reports being completed by Government Departments, listed in the amendment, on the expected effects of the regulations under the Bill. As I have made clear, the Government would not have made the decision they did in December 2002 on free movement of workers if all those Government Departments had not considered fully the impact of such a decision on their work. They all concluded that the regulations would have a positive impact on the United Kingdom.
	The effect of amendment No. 5 would be to make my Department lay, apparently, regular reports before Parliament on the effect of the regulations under the Bill from May 2004 to 2011. The Department for Work and Pensions already closely monitors the labour market and will continue to do so. From next year, it will look specifically at the effect on the labour market of opening it to the eight relevant new member states from accession. It will use a range of data and information to see whether there is any disturbance to the UK labour market sufficient to justify reintroducing restrictions on workers in line with the safeguards in the legislation. The Department will also closely monitor other sources of information. The CBI, the TUC and other stakeholders, the sector representatives that we are in close dialogue with for other reasons, are already talking to us about how we can do that systematically. Therefore, amendment No. 5 is not necessary. I hope that the Opposition will not press that amendment, or the others.
	There is one outstanding point: that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies). As I have made clear, all Departments considered the impact of clause 2, including the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I understand his point about Roma people but we do not expect enlargement to result in a flow of Roma people. As I have made clear, it will reduce the push factors that encourage people to leave their countries. We do not expecthe acknowledged that it might not happenenlargement to lead to a large influx of Roma people.
	If the Opposition press the amendments, I will ask the Committee to resist them but my hope is that they will not press them. I hope that they will join the Government and support the Committee on this important Bill, and that we send the most positive signal we can as a Parliament to the accession countries that we not only welcome enlargement but feel able positively to give them full rights as acceding countries from the date of accession. I hope that the Opposition will support clause 2.

Richard Spring: I thank the Minister for her comments, which were made with great courtesy; indeed, we all listened with considerable interest to what she had to say. She came to the conclusion that access to the United Kingdom for workers from 1 May would have a marginal impact, and cited three studies, including one published today and one by the former Department for Education and Employment. I am grateful for her somewhat oblique apology for the study that was published only today; at least she acknowledged that fact. She slightly gave the game away when she conceded that there had indeed been a transitional period of two years in respect of previous accessions. That is what we were seeking to achieve through these amendments.
	We of course endorse the Minister's point about key workers. It has always been the policy of all United Kingdom Governments to make it easy for people to come to this country, wherever they come from, and we would always wish to be in favour of that. However, the various studies by Government Departments that she talked about were not mentioned at all on Second Reading. It is absolutely extraordinary that the Foreign Secretary made no reference to this wonderful variant of joined-up government. We certainly did not see it, and had we done so it might have persuaded us to think again. As with the study that is so important in reaching a conclusion on the impact of immigration, the Foreign Secretary was unable to reveal the information on Second Reading. I am sorry about that, because it tells my colleagues and I that the functional aspect of the Government is sometimes extremely weak. However, we do not want to dwell on that.

Beverley Hughes: Everyone who was present on Second Reading will remember that we had a wide-ranging debate on a variety of issues that were not particularly relevant to the Bill. In fact, the Opposition spokesperson himself simply passed over clause 2, saying that they wanted to deal with it in Committee.

Richard Spring: One key aspect of accession is entry into the United Kingdom and other existing member states, and I fail to understand why the Minister does not see the importance of that. We will not dwell on the matter, but the fact is that it could have been cleared up on Second Reading. It was not, and that was unfortunate. We have now had two instances of the Government's behaving in a way that is very unhelpful in furthering understanding of the Bill.
	The Minister has said that safeguards are in place and she has spelled them out. I accept them and I am grateful to her for that; however, we will want to monitor them carefully. Having said that, I endorse entirely her point that we want to send out a positive message to the accession countries. We were entitled to ask for clarification, but the overriding importance of the Bill was shown on Second Reading, when something historically extraordinary happened in this Chamber: unanimous acceptance of the Bill. In that context, we will not seek to divide the Committee. The spirit of our support across the party political divide for the accession countries is so powerful and so rooted in the thinking of successive Governments that we do not propose to take these amendments any further. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Denis MacShane: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We have had a good afternoon's debate, with generous comments on how much the whole House welcomes the accession of 10 new member states. It is an historic moment for the House of Commons, bringing closure not only to 50 years of the cold war, but to a much longer period during which Europe was divided by different passions, different politics and different ideologies. I hope that it signals the beginning of a new century of peace and prosperity, progress and democracy for our common continent and the Euro-Atlantic community of nations to which we and all other members of the European Union belong.
	I am grateful, as are all Government Members, for the way in which Opposition Members have taken the Bill through its Committee stage, making important and cogent points. I do not deny the fact that some fears have been voiced. We heard about the BBC programme on the Roma, which reflected fears that we have to deal with, but we should never lose sight of the fact that our nation has always been at its best when it has opened its doors and been generous to our fellow Europeans and immigrants from all over the world. It was Daniel Defoe's great poem, The True-Born Englishman, written some 300 years ago, that referred to the English people as this mongrel race.
	I greatly welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who spoke about the welcome that his parents from Estonia received in this country. I think of my own father who, as a Polish army officer, was wounded in the first campaign against the Wehrmacht of 1939. He escaped and ended up in Scotland, where he married my mother.
	When I was in Poland last week, I took the opportunity to visit some of my great-cousins and I met my father's sister. I discovered that they will be voting yes in the referendum this weekend. I wonder if this could be a turning-point in the history of the House of Commons, when at long last the poisonous venom of anti-Europeanism begins to be drained out of the political system of the United Kingdom, and we can start to speak more as one on the great question of Europe. I hope that never again will my second and third cousins, nieces and nephews in Poland have to contemplate a future other than in their own country, unless they wish to live in another part of Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) pointed out, many of our fellow citizens live and work in other parts of Europe. Many citizens from the European Union work here in London and elsewhere in the UK. I state as firmly as possible from the Dispatch Box that each and every one of them adds value to our nation.
	I am proud of the fact that the Government, with the support of the House, will not apply the more rigorous transition periods that other nations have. I do not criticise them, but I do not understand the need for seven more years of illiberal red tape and bureaucracy before granting people the possibility of coming here to work.
	We had a good Second Reading debate, although it was clogged up with the detritus of isolationism from the Daily Mail and the usual anti-European drivel that we get from those who want this country to withdraw from the EU. I am glad that this afternoon we have moved into the calmer waters of a serious, mature debate on how to make the enlargement of the European Union work.
	I will convey, as I did at the Catholic university of Lublin last Wednesday, the fact that the House of Commons is united in supporting the enlargement of the European Union. It really is an enormous privilegeand strengthens my arm, in as much as I have the honour to represent Her Majesty as the Minister for Europeto be able to pray in aid the House of Commons united on this matter. I hope that on the future great questions of the euro and the constitutional treaty, I will be in a similar position.
	The Third Reading of the Bill is a quiet and satisfying moment in our country's history. Our Prime Minister and his predecessors have taken the lead in holding their feet to the fire, as some of our European partnerswho perhaps were not as keen on enlargementfailed to do. Today, the House completes an important piece of legislation and we can say, from the Baltic sea to the east Mediterranean coast, to the two new Commonwealth country members of Malta and Cyprus and to our friends in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, welcome to this our common European Union, and welcome to the possibility of working with the United Kingdom to make a stronger European Union fit for all of its citizens.

Michael Ancram: I am glad to support the Third Reading of this historic Bill which paves the way for the Europe of 15 to become the Europe of 25. The Conservative party was one of the earliest advocates of enlargement. Europe could never be whole when so many of its member nations were living behind an ideological as well as a physical iron curtain. The end of the cold war and the collapse of communism opened the doors to the historical reconstituting of Europe. We warmly welcome that, and with this Bill we welcome to our European family the 10 successful applicant countries. From Poland to Malta and from Estonia to Cyprusand all the other countries that will join usthey will bring both energy and variety.
	I was pleased, along with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. That is more, I may say, than the Prime Minister did, which was a strange omission from someone who has accused us of being anti-enlargement while proclaiming his own deep support for it. Another example of him being all mouth and no delivery.
	We congratulate the accession countries on the courage and determination with which they have pursued their applications to join. The negotiations have not been easy, and uncomfortable concessions and sacrifices have had to be made, as those who have been involved in the negotiations can bear witness. We look forward to working with our new partners in the building of a more prosperous, more stable Europe that looks forward rather than back. That is why one of the ironies of this Bill is that, while it provides for the accession of the 10 new members, it is still not able to indicate what the shape of that which they are joining will be. The Europe that they have negotiated to join is the European Union of the existing treaties. Subject to the coming IGC, and its reaction to the recommendations currently emanating from the Convention, there is a danger that the Europe they join could be very different.
	The current European Union is still, if only just, a Europe of nations where power flows from the national Parliaments and Governments upwards, although that shape has been gravely eroded over recent years. The Europe that they may be heading into could be a different animala politically united Europe where power flows from the top downwards. The Government will once again dismiss that suggestion. They will tell us that the new Europe will merely be a tidied-up Europe. They have to tell us that, because they know that the British people would not accept the creation of a European political entity. But the accession countries to which the Bill refers are owed better than the sleight of hand to which they are being treated. Those countries need to look beyond the details to the totality of what all the details put together will create.
	If the Convention proposals were adopted, the accession countries would find themselves in an EU that had a number of elements. Those elements would include a separate legal persona; a full-blown constitution, including enforceable fundamental rights; a president with a five-year term; a foreign secretary; supremacy of its laws over the laws of its component parts; its own currency and central bank; a public prosecutor; control over vital areas of home policy; and, increasingly, its own foreign and security policy.
	That would be the totality. What it provides is no longer, in any shape or form, a Europe of nations but a political entity in its own right. That is the reality of what the accession countries would be joining, and not the deceptive spin that we so often receive.
	Hon. Members do not have to take that from me. These accession countries can listen to the words of the former Italian Prime Minister and Convention member Lamberto Dini. Speaking in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph last weekend, he said:
	Anyone who claims that the constitution will not change things is trying to sweeten the pill for those who do not want to see a bigger role for Europe . . . The constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people's lives . . . Eventually the Union will be able to make legislation of its own. It will become an institution and organisation in its own right.
	That is the view from the inside. It is certainly more credible than the tidying up nonsense that we get from the Government.
	That view raises interesting questions in relation to the position of the accession countries. The Prime Minister last week in Poland seemed to think that, although the Poles are to have a referendum on accession, they would not have one on the proposed constitution. We later learned that that was not certain and had not yet been decided. The question is this: if a new treaty can be prevented by the failure of any current member of the EU to ratify itGiscard d'Estaing said on Breakfast with Frost two weeks ago that there would be no treaty if that happenedcould a new treaty with a constitution be stopped in its tracks by one of the accession countries failing to ratify it following a referendum that required it so to do? That is to say, could an accession country, as its first act of membership, prevent Europe going down the constitution road by refusing to ratify it? That question remains unanswered.
	Another relevant question arose during the recess. I hope that the Minister can clear it up. We learn from the Bill that all members of the EU, including the 10 accession countries, will hold elections to the European Parliament next June. In the absence of referendums, do the Government share the view of the Welsh Secretary that these elections provide a sort of surrogate referendum in which the people canand willdecide? Does that view refer only to this country or will it be applied as well to the equivalent elections in other countries, where there will not be referendums? Would not it be far simpler, more democratic and more honest to hold a referendum here, and let the people decide?
	This Bill is about enlargement. It clears the way for the 10 countries to join the EU. However, the work does not end here. Making enlargement a success will not be easy. Disparities of wealth within the EU will be larger. Certainly, the accession countries will badly need better infrastructure, and support in deploying their natural talents and resources to best effect.
	I believe that the peoples in the 10 accession countries rightly hope that EU membership will bring wealth and jobs. If the economic promise of membership is to become a reality for its new members, then existing members will have to make changes to the way the EU presently works. After all, have we not asked all the applicant states to prepare for membership by closing all the chapters? It is not now a case of what we have done to prepare for their entry, but more a case of what we have not done.
	First, the common agricultural policy must change. There is widespread agreement that it is in need of radical reform. Its history goes back to the beginnings of the Common Market. What it was able to do for six members, it will no longer be able to do for 25.
	Secondly, structural funds cannot continue to be used as they have been. Many countries have benefited greatly from them, and some have prospered so much that they no longer need them to the same extent. Now these funds will be needed elsewhere. Countries such as Poland are crying out for investment in their infrastructure, and wise use of structural funds could be crucial in helping their economies to prosper. I hope that that will also be pursued.
	Thirdly, we must continue to make the single market work. A stable Europe is one built on prosperity. Deep economic reform should be the key priority for the EU at this time. We need flexible economies, freed from the burden of red tape. This week, as we look at the demographic challenges that face so many parts of Europe, we have seen strikes in several European countries, as Governments seek to deal with this emerging problem.
	We will need courage, boldness and vision if over-regulation and archaic and inflexible working practices, coupled with an ageing and shrinking work force are not to make Europe a relative economic backwater.
	Enlargement does not stop next year, however. We hope that Romania and Bulgaria will join in 2007. We hope that, when the political criteria are satisfied, negotiations will begin with Turkey that will lead to its membership. Furthermore, we need to look at the EU's relationship with Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine and Russia. That question is becoming acute. It would be a tragedy if the result of enlargement were to weaken the ties that those countries enjoy with the rest of Europe. It is becoming increasingly clear that the EU will have to develop more flexible structures if we are to develop our relationships with those countries to their full potential. I hope that we shall all take up that challenge for the future.
	Enlargement will create new opportunities for people and businesses in all 25 member states of the new EU. New wealth and jobs will be created. I hope that we shall now seek to build an enlarged Europe that revels in its diversity, not a Europe that seeks to turn itself into a grand political entity, trying to rival the United States, superseding our continent's nation states yet failing to tackle its weak points. We look forward to working with the accession countries to build an EU that looks to its peoples' aspirations, not simply to the aspirations of its elite. I am delighted to support Third Reading.

Michael Moore: Who would have believed it? We have held a major debate on a significant development in Europe and we have cross-party consensus. Indeed, there was a spectacular result on Second Reading, when the House supported the Bill by 491 votes to nil.
	In that debate, there was much talk of remarkable political transformations, which referred mostly to the spectacular progress made by the accession states, whose membership we endorse today. However, we should not let this moment of cross-party unanimity on this subject pass without reflecting on the positive pro-European signal that our votes sent out on that occasion. Alas, as the speech of the shadow Foreign Secretary has just indicated, and as we may find when we have the announcementor non-announcementabout the euro on Monday, the moment will prove to have been brief. Let us enjoy it while we can. Liberal Democrat Members wholeheartedly endorse the Bill and support its Third Reading.
	Within a year, we must hope that the existing 15 member states will be joined by 10 new members. Given the extremely positive results of the referendums so far, that seems highly likely. As the Minister for Europe pointed out in Committee earlier, referendums in Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia have given strong endorsement for accession to the European Union. The indications in countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic, which are due to hold referendums shortly, are that they, too, will endorse accession.
	Those results are important and, hopefully, in September will be further enhanced by the addition of Estonia and Latvia to the accession process. They represent a symbolic break with a past that, for so many, was characterised by conflict, invasion and totalitarian rule. The shackles are completely broken. The promised brighter future is taking a new and tangible form.
	Each of those former communist countries has made decisive strides away from its past during the last decade. It would be insulting and naive to suggest that only the lure of EU membership created that change. Each has fast been developing its own democracy and modern market economy, and their desire to join the EU and part of our enthusiasm in welcoming them is based on the entrenchment of their new democratic principles, creating more prosperity and bolstering their security.
	In recent months, opinion polls in the accession states have highlighted what the people of the new members see as the benefits of membership. Greater economic stability, improved competitiveness, human rights protection, rights for workers, environmental protection and common action on drugs and other forms of trafficking are just a few examples and positive reasons why they wish to join the EU. We in this country will benefit as well, with access to an increased market with up to 500 million people, which is about twice the size of the United States of America. We, too, will enjoy the benefits of enhanced security, finally, we hope, putting behind us centuries of conflict in Europe.
	Not all will be plain sailing, and it would be remiss of us to ignore some of the problems that still face us. Indeed, in today's proceedings, right hon. and hon. Members have talked about the problems in Cyprus and we share their disappointment that it is not yet possible for the island to join in a united form. However, as has been said today and in previous debates on the subject, the fact that the people of Cyprus are voting with their feet and crossing between the north and the south is a positive development. I hope that the politicians will reflect on that and that a settlement will be reached.
	Similarly, we must not ignore the problems of the need for reform within the EU. We, too, agree that the common agricultural policy, among other policy areas, needs to be examined seriously and overhauled from its present form. As the shadow Foreign Secretary highlighted, we can also look ahead to the outcome of the Convention and the intergovernmental conference and to a whole new way of operating in the EU. We will return to that debate on another occasion. No doubt, the arguments will be vigorous.
	For now, we should continue to recognise the scale of the historical achievement that the Bill marks and that accession represents. Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly endorse the process and support the Bill.

Ann Winterton: I rise briefly to support the Bill's Third Reading, not least because its brings into focus once again the importance to Parliament of the European Communities Act 1972, which has to be amended each time European legislation is introduced in this country. It is important that Members and people outside appreciate the importance of that Act. To date, it has been a one-way journey, in that we have amended the Act to introduce European legislation, but it can be amended the other wayfor example, to bring back national control over British fisheries policy. That could be done if this Parliament had the political will so to do.
	I welcome the countries that are joining the EU, but the Second Reading debate was amazing because of the themes that ran through it. I have flicked through Hansard and I wish to quote a couple of remarks made in that debate. The first is by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who said:
	Enlargement requires decentralisation and flexibility.[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 1040.]
	Everyone would agree with that.
	Later in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) said:
	The EU is in drastic need of reform. A large proportion of hon. Members agree broadly on the agenda to deal with it. We want a looser EU with the supranational element stripped out. We want the application of subsidiarity, or whatever one wants to call it. We want much greater scrutiny of EU activity by national Parliaments.[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 1108.]
	However, the accession of the 10 states after May next year and an EU of 25 states will make change and reform much more difficult to achieve. Any meaningful change or reform has to be agreed by unanimity. It has been difficult enough to get unanimity among 10 and 15 member states, and another 10 will make that even more difficult.
	With that word of caution, I join hon. Members on both sides in welcoming the Bill and supporting its Third Reading.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION
	  
	Post Offices

Ann McKechin: It is a great honour to present to the House a petition from the west of Scotland seniors forum. Its headquarters is based in my constituency but, as its name suggests, it campaigns on behalf of the elderly over a wide area of Scotland.
	Tremendous concern has been reflected throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom about the effect of the current post office closure programme on our local communities and, especially, the elderly. Many older people, including a significant percentage of older people in my constituency, rely entirely on their local post office to obtain their pensions and pay their bills. Many elderly people rely solely on public transport and many suffer from mobility problems. In addition, many live a considerable distance from alternative banking facilities. Such closures are likely to hit our elderly the hardest.
	The west of Scotland seniors forum has collected a magnificent 9,076 signatures from post office users in many parts of Scotland. It calls for the current closure plan to be stopped and hopes that its appeal will be taken seriously.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The petition of the West of Scotland Seniors Forum
	Declares that Consignia/Post Office Ltd is wrong to consider closing 3,000 local post offices as this will lead to poorer services for older people who rely on their local post office for many transactions. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to intervene and stop the closures.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

SUB-PLOT LAND SALES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Caplin.]

John Stanley: My debate has been triggered by a horrendous chain of events at a location in the green belt in my constituency called Deer's Leap. I shall return to that but the House and the Minister should be in no doubt that the events that I shall describe have a significance that goes far wider than only my constituency. They have relevance to the south-east region and beyond, because they call into question the integrity, credibility and enforceability of the entire development control system.
	Deer's Leap isor rather wasan area of lush, open meadow in the beautiful parish of Hever, near the town of Edenbridge in my constituency. It is in an area that is designated as both green belt and of local landscape importance. Those who bought homes in the vicinity of Deer's Leap did so on the basis of local authority searches, some of which I have seen, that assured them that the surrounding land was designated as green belt. The prices that they paid for the homes reflected that designation. Sadly, the name Deer's Leap today carries a somewhat bitter irony. It is the name of an area in which no self-respecting deer would venture to tread; and no deer, or indeed anyone who saw what is there today, would leap for joy.
	It was on 2 September last year that the officers of Sevenoaks district council, who should be commended for their alertness, first became aware that a land speculation company called Parker Fields Ltd., which had acquired Deer's Leap, was offering it for resale in a series of sub-plots. On the following day, 3 September, the council immediately fired a warning shot across the bows of Parker Fields. They told the company that the council would strongly resist any attempt to develop Deer's Leap for non-agricultural purposes and that it would monitor the site closely and consider taking any enforcement action that became necessary. Regrettably, the warning shot proved to have no deterrent value whatsoever for that land speculation company.
	With all the danger signs flashing over Deer's Leap, the officers of the council as quickly as possible sought and obtained from the members of the council authority to apply to the Deputy Prime Minister for article 4 directions. As the House knows, article 4 directions are the strongest forms of protection that can be obtained for a site such as Deer's Leap under existing planning law. The council applied for not just one article 4 direction, but three, supposedly to protect the site against the incursion of caravans, the arrival of hardcore for hard-standings or roadways, and the erection of fencing.
	The council applied to the Deputy Prime Minister's Department on 13 November last year. It took the Department a total of four months to process those straightforward applications, which was far too long. Finally, on 12 March the three directions, signed in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister, reached Sevenoaks district council. Ironically, the letters and approval of the three article 4 directions arrived on the day on which the invasion of Deer's Leap began.
	The invasion of Deer's Leap was no ordinary minor infringement of development control. It was a carefully planned, determinedly executed military-style operation. Caravans started to arrive on 12 March. Hard on their heels came lorry after lorry loaded with hardcore to create hard-standings and roadways. That in turn was followed by the removal of the topsoil and the erection of huge lengths of fencing to fence off the sub-plots. In a very short space of time, the lush open meadow of Deer's Leap in the green belt had become an environmental eyesore of a caravan encampment with all the trappings of permanence. In the process, the article 4 directions of the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had, frankly, been torn up in shreds in his face.
	Equally well organised in that carefully planned attempt to smash the development control system was the planning application. Lo and behold, it arrived in the offices of Sevenoaks district council on 13 March, just 24 hours after the invasion of Deer's Leap began. The planning application was for a retrospective change of use of Deer's Leap to be used as a site for the permanent positioning of 12 caravans and mobile homes, together with hard-standing and fencing. In other words, it was an application to get planning consent on a permanent basis for a change of use that had already been brought about by force and by occupation.
	In such circumstances the local authority has only one place to goto the High Court for an injunctionand to the High Court Sevenoaks district council went. Unhappily, though, the legal system is no better able than the planning system to protect areas such as Deer's Leap from gross breaches of development control. The practice of the High Court is not to issue an injunction saying that the land is to be restored to what it was before the gross breach of development control took place, but merely to issue an injunction to stop the breach getting any worse than it has become by the time the injunction is issued. That means that the legal system gives every possible incentive to those carrying out a gross breach of development control to make the maximum possible breach in the shortest possible time, before the injunction takes effect. That is precisely what happened at Deer's Leap.
	Despite the serious limitations of the legal process, Sevenoaks district council had no alternative but to go down the High Court injunction route. An ex parte injunction was obtained on 3 April, three weeks after the invasion started, followed by an inter partes injunction confirming the ex parte injunction on 11 April. By the time the ex parte injunction was issued on 3 April requiring the maintenance of the status quo as at that date, there were a total of 12 caravans on the site. However, following the injunctions of 3 and 11 April, additional caravans continued to arrive on the site, additional hardcore was laid out and additional fencing continued to go up. As a result, Sevenoaks district council has had to go to the extreme lengths of making a further application to the High Court for a committal order to prison for contempt of court. That is set down for hearing on 27 June.
	As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I took advice from the Clerk of the House this morning on the application of the sub judice rule. In accordance with the advice that I received, I shall make no comment on the merits or otherwise of Sevenoaks district council's application for a committal order set down for hearing on 27 June.
	In the meantime, the planning application lodged on 13 March has been determined. It was determined last week, on 30 May. Sevenoaks district council refused planning consent and the council members gave authority for the taking of enforcement action to try to restore Deer's Leap in its entirety to an unfenced grazing area. However, that is not the end of the planning story. Planning refusals can be appealed. Enforcement notices can be appealed. If there are appeals, months will elapse while an inquiry is set up, a public inquiry is heard, the inspector goes away to consider the inquiry's evidence and produce his report, and final determination of the appeals takes place. It could be a year or more from the start of the invasion before the planning outcome is determined.
	I earnestly hope that the outcome, which will appear in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister, will ensure that the gross breach of development control is reversed in its entirety. All that can be said at this stagethis is a grim situation for my constituentsis that the final outcome is unknown.
	What can be done about situations such as that at Deer's Leap? Prior to this debate, I put the case in writing directly to the Deputy Prime Minister, on 28 March and again on 14 April. When I wrote, I illustrated the situation with photographs taken before the invasion and after it, which were kindly supplied by one of my constituents. I found the reply dated 7 May that I received from the Minister of State in another place, Lord Rooker, totally inadequate. It contained the, to my mind, hopelessly over-optimistic sentence:
	I should point out that controls already exist to tackle unlawful development in the countryside.
	Tell that to those of my constituents who live in the vicinity of Deer's Leap. Controls may exist in theory, but in practice, as I hope I have illustrated, they are totally and utterly ineffectual against those who are out to smash the development control system. In his reply, the Minister of State showed no regard for the seriousness of what has happened at Deer's Leap. He showed no appreciation of how urgently Government legislation is now required, and no understanding of the fact that if new legislation is not forthcoming, the implications for the entire development control system will be very serious.
	In exploring what should be done, I start with what I thought was a very pertinent observation put to me by the planning director of Sevenoaks district council, Mrs. Jean Morgan, in a letter to me dated 30 May. She says:
	It is difficult not to conclude that planning only works when people follow the rules: the current system is based on consent and compliance. Although it works successfully to protect the environment and the interests of the wider community in the large majority of cases, when it does not work it can fail spectacularly.
	At Deer's Leap it has failed not only spectacularly, but disastrously. The key question is what is to be done about the small minority of people, whether companies, partnerships or individuals, who are out simply to bust the development control system. I shall start with the land speculation companies, because I believe that without them the problem would not arise. If there were no Parker Fields Ltd., I would not have had to raise this debate.
	I want to take this opportunity to put the record straight on one point relating to Parker Fields Ltd. I have examined the company's website very closely. Parker Fields Ltd. operates out of suite 113 of the Park Royal business centre in London NW10. On the first page of the website is a quotation in which the company is described as the
	Robin Hood of the Land Industry.
	Below that is the statement that the company's sole director
	robs the Rich and gives to the Middle Classes.
	Well, Robin Hood, I have been examining your company's transactions in the context of Deer's Leap, and I want to put on the record the justification or otherwise for the nauseatingly self-righteous claim that you make on the front page of your website.
	In doing so, I am most grateful for the assistance that I have received from the chief registrar of the Tunbridge Wells district Land Registry office for the following information. He has assured me that in all cases it can be put into the public domain. These are the transactions in relation to Deer's Leap conducted by Parker Fields Ltd.
	On 19 April 2002, the company bought the area for 60,000. It got its money back in five months flat by re-selling part of the site to Susan Armitage for 60,000. From then on it was profit all the way for Robin Hood, and the profit came in three separate tranches. There were two sales to Mr. William Kennedy in September 2002 and February 2003 for 19,000 and 10,000 respectively. Finally, there was a sale to four members of the Doran family in sub-plots for 22,500 in February 2003. So as a result of the land speculation of Parker Fields Ltd., for the initial outlay of 60,000 it got back 111,500, effectively nearly doubling its money in 10 months flat. The one person who has clearly become significantly richer is Mr. Robin Hood.
	Let us consider the other side of the financial equation. The local home owners in the vicinity of Deer's Leap have found that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been wiped off the value of their homes. Indeed, one or two of the local residents have told me that their homes are now, to all intents and purpose, unsaleable.
	In addition, the luckless council tax payers of Sevenoaks district council are picking up an ever increasing bill. I have seen the costs for the district council so far. In terms of legal fees and the cost of officers' time, the bill for the district council's council tax payers already runs into tens of thousands of pounds. I suspect that that is only the start of the overall bill for council tax payers. There will be further legal costs and High Court appearances. There is no doubt that further costs will be incurredofficers' time and legal costsas a result of a public inquiry if the enforcement notice and planning refusal are appealed.
	Perhaps most significantly of all, at the end of the process, if the Deputy Prime Minister ensures that the site is returned to its original state, as I trust he will, there will be the cost of removing all the hardcore, some of which may be contaminated, putting back the topsoil and restoring the site to what it was. Ultimately, the bill could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, which might become a liability of the council tax payers of Sevenoaks district council.
	On the basis of this illustration, which I am glad I have had the opportunity to recount to the House in detail, it is evident that although only a small minority of people are determined to bust the development control system, the present civil basis of planning law and enforcement law is ineffectual. It clearly provides a wholly insufficient deterrent for those who are effectively seeking to take development rights into their own hands.
	I believe that the Government have to consider introducing wholly new legislation in respect of such people, who create major breaches of development control. In speaking of major breaches, I am not referring to homeowners who push their luck with extensions that are rather larger than is appropriate under the general development order or even to travellers who pitch camp at the roadside and who intend to move on, but do so only when they are required toirritating, vexing and costly though the associated processes are. I am referring to those who breach development control in a major way and then seek to establish permanent development rights on the basis of their breach.
	I want to put a particular proposal to the Minister. I believe that there is now an unanswerable case, given the weakness of the civil law, to make a small but necessary extension of the criminal law into this area. The proposition that I put to her is that where companies, partnerships or individuals knowingly connive in, are associated with or give effect to major breaches of development control, they should be brought within the ambit of the criminal law. Happily, the Government have in the House at the present time a legislative vehicle that would make that possiblethe Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, on which I understand a carry-over motion is being debated next week. I ask the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to consider most carefully the proposal that I have made, as I believe that it is absolutely essential, on the basis of what has happened at Deer's Leap and elsewhere, to make a significant change in the development control system and to introduce the criminal law into this area.
	Finally, I stress to the Minister the fact that the problem is growing. If she is in any doubt about that, I suggest to her and her officials that they scrutinise the website of Parker Fields Ltd., as well as those of other companies that may be involved in the speculative sub-plot land sale process. That website should be studied not only by the Government, but by local authorities and solicitors firms advising clients as to whether they should buy a house in a particular location. Indeed, a large number of existing house owners may wish to satisfy themselves as to whether Parker Fields Ltd. is active in the vicinity of their homes. If that is the case, all that I can point out is that the activities of that company have had a disastrous impact on house prices in the immediate vicinity of Deer's Leap.
	It may assist the Minister and the House if I indicate the locations where Parker Fields Ltd. has land up for sale, as featured today on its website. There are two sites in south Buckinghamshire, at Denham and Beaconsfield. A site is up for sale in the Chiltern district of Buckinghamshire, and another site in the Three Rivers district of Hertfordshire. There is also a site near Maidstone in Kent, which I am sure will dismay my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), and a site in the Mole Valley area of Surrey. Only today, a site appeared on the website that is described thus: Surrey. Coming soonnine and a half acres south of Dorking. That will please people who live just south of Dorking. Lastly, there is a site in east Sussex in the Wealden district.
	I make these points to the Minister so that the Government are in no doubt that the significance of the problem goes much wider than my constituency. The Government must act. They must produce further legislation, and they must do so fast.

Barbara Roche: Let me say at the beginning that I fully understand why the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) has brought the subject of the debate before the House. I congratulate him on securing the debate. I entirely share his view that this is an important issue for his constituency with wider ramifications throughout the south-east. He may be aware of the previous debate that was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) in April. It is a matter of cross-party concern to the whole House, and I am pleased that we are discussing it. There is great concern about the practice of sub-dividing farmland to sell off at higher prices than might be achieved through the sale of the land as one large plot, which has given rise to some of the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman outlines. I shall shortly go into those in a little more detail.
	First, I want to reassure the House that the Government do not intend to change the basis of green belt policy as set out in national planning policy guidance. The fundamental aim of green belt policy remains unchanged: it is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The purposes of including land in green belts are: to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration. The guidance makes it clear that there is a general presumption against inappropriate development in green belts. Save for a few specific exceptionsfor example, agricultural buildingsthe construction of new buildings inside a green belt is inappropriate development. The right hon. Gentleman, as a distinguished former Minister in the Department of the Environment, as it then was, will be familiar with policy and procedure in this area. In his announcement on sustainable communities on 5 February this year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the protection and enhancement of the green belt and the valued countryside around our towns and cities.
	If the House will bear with me, I shall clearly set out the legal position. I agree that the sub-division of agricultural land, especially in areas of outstanding natural beauty, can have an adverse affect on the scenic nature of the environment. The sub-division itself can be unsightly, but it may lead to even more harmful longer term affects. If a developer buys a plot of land and discovers that planning permission is not granted for the use that he or she has in mind, there is a real danger that the plot could fall into neglect and disrepair. Sub-division of fields is, of course, perfectly legal and can be undertaken without the need for planning permission. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 grants permitted development rights for
	the erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure,
	provided that it is 2 m or less in height above ground level.
	Unless a planning condition or other legal obstacle affects the situation, development permitted by the general permitted development order cannot be prevented except by a local authority using its powers under article 4 of the order to withdraw permitted development rights in a particular circumstance. The right hon. Gentleman has already given us a graphic example of that this afternoon. Article 4 directions may also require the agreement of the Deputy Prime Minister in his role as First Secretary of State.
	I should also explain that permitted development rights granted by Parliament are removed only in exceptional circumstances, and only when a real and specific threat to the interest of the proper planning of an area has been demonstrated. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that to do otherwise would undermine the rights granted to the public to undertake minor works, and involving certain temporary uses, without the need for planning permission. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not speaking of cases such as these; he is speaking about the specific examplesin a very cogent fashion, if I may say sothat he has given to the House this afternoon. Having said that, when it is shown that such a threat exists, we appreciate that prompt action is required by both local and central GovernmentI understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the time gap; I will undertake to look into thatto ensure that, in appropriate instances, permitted development rights are removed before uncontrolled and potentially harmful development takes place.
	I should point out that the effect of the directions is not to prevent development outright. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the developer would still be able to seek planning permission, but that must be done firmly within the bounds of the planning and development control framework. Such directions enable the council to have control over the situation, and to decide any application in the light of the development plan and any other material considerations, such as relevant planning policy guidance. The process also allows local residents to make representations on any application for planning permission that may subsequently be made.
	In respect of the particular case at Deer's Leap that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, I base my remarks on information that has been provided to me by the local government office. I understand that Sevenoaks district council had previously contacted the selling agent of Parker Fields Ltd. Indeed, that has been confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman today. The council told the agent that it would strongly resist any form of inappropriate development, as the site was designated green belt, an area of local landscape importance, and an area for the special control of adverts. It is also included in the Environment Agency's indicative flood plain, so there are several important reasons why the local authority acted in the way that it did.
	The selling agent was also advised that the site would be closely monitored and that consideration would be given to enforcement action against any development for use of the site for non-agricultural purposes. Following this contact with the selling agent, the council contacted the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, requesting confirmation of three article 4 directions on the site. It felt that if development took place under permitted development rights, it could seriously affect the character, amenity and attractiveness of the countryside. On 12 March this year, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Government office for the south-east confirmed these three article 4 directions on land at Deer's Leap field.
	Sevenoaks has subsequently refused planning permission for the siting of four mobile homes on the site, as has been stated, and is currently considering an application for a stable block on the site. However, I understand that there are currently 21 caravans on the site, complete with large areas of hard standing, including block paving, that do not relate to the sketches shown to the council as part of the planning application process. Indeed, this has been graphically described by the right hon. Gentleman.
	I further understandthis is my information as of last nightthat an enforcement notice is being prepared by the council to remove the caravans and hard standing and return the use of land to its natural agricultural state. I understand also that it will be served very soon.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of enforcement powers and how breaches of planning control could be dealt with. He will be aware that we recently undertook a comprehensive review of planning enforcement. The resulting consultation paper, which considers the principles and the range of powers available, was issued towards the end of last year. We expect to announce the results later this year.
	The right hon. Gentleman has made strong representations. Even though the consultation period has closed, I give him my undertaking that we will look very seriously at the proposals that he has put to us this afternoon. I hope that that is helpful to him.

John Stanley: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that her Department will look closely at the proposals I have made. Can she say that the Government have an open mind as to whether there may be circumstances in which it would be right to bring major breaches of development control within the ambit of the criminal law system? I am not asking her to sign up to that proposition across the Floor of the House today, but I hope that she can confirm that, on this key issue, the Government have an open mind.

Barbara Roche: I want to choose my words carefully here. We will look very openly at all the representations that are made to us. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of serious issues, which deserve thorough examination. We will certainly look at them. I hope that he will forgive me for being unable to give any firmer commitment, because, of course, a number of representations have already been received.
	It might interest the House to know that the Deputy Prime Minister has also confirmed other article 4 directions in respect of sites in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. For example, the Deputy Prime Minister recently confirmed eight directions on Common road, Burham. The site comprises about 17 hectares of land fronting on to the north-east side of Common road adjacent to Burham Hill farm.

John Stanley: That area is in the adjacent constituency, which is represented by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw). He and I have been discussing the issue, and I know that he will be glad to hear what the Minister has said.

Barbara Roche: I am grateful for that information. I will write to my hon. Friend to ensure that he is apprised of these matters. I am sure that he is, as there will have been discussions between him and the right hon. Gentleman.
	The land is a site of nature conservation interest. It is also an area of outstanding natural beauty and a special landscape area. The Deputy Prime Minister has also recently confirmed an article 4 direction on a site at Raywood farm, near Ashford. A company named Property Spy was advertising the site as being available for sale in plots. The local authority believes that, without the direction, the subdivision of land could seriously damage the amenity of the area, which is designated as a special landscape area.
	To bring us right up to date, I understand that the Government office for the south-east is considering requests for confirmation of article 4 directions from Tonbridge and Malling borough council on the following sites: Beechinwood farm, Platt; Shrublands, Platt; and Kits Coty farm in Aylesford. We will ensure that the consideration is completed as soon as possible. I understand that investigations have been carried out on two sites, and that a third is to be conducted soon.
	As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is not just an issue for his constituency; it has wide ramifications. He has done the House a service by raising it.
	The Government are conducting a review of permitted development rights to determine whether existing rights are still appropriate, and to consider how the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 could be made more comprehensible. The first stage of the reviewa research studyis nearing completion, and the report is likely to be published this summer. I cannot comment on its findings until we have seen its recommendations, but I can confirm that the issue of subdivision of land has been raised with the researchers.
	Once the report has been completed, we will consider its conclusions and recommendations before deciding whether any changes are desirable. Any such changes will be subject to full public consultation, and I am sure that the subdivision issue will be raised during that consultation.

John Stanley: Can the Minister confirm that, if the House approves the carry-over order for the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill next week, that will provide a legislative vehicle allowing changes in the development control system to be introduced if the Government so decide?

Barbara Roche: I do not want to raise the right hon. Gentleman's hopes. I am not sure whether that is allowed by the timetable for the review. However, other matters relating to planning are still under consideration, so there may be other opportunities in the future.
	We want to act to support local planning authorities when a real and specific threat has been shown to exist, even if it is posed by permitted development. I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman brought this case to our attention. We must protect the countryside, for the benefit of those who want to enjoy the countryside not just today but tomorrow.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Five o'clock.